From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-23 11:43:01
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]> writes:
> That's way cool, Davem thanks on behalf of everyone.
> Conclusions (to my happiness, 100% as I predicted):
> 1. URVO is much more widespread than NRVO.
> 2. Who's doing NRVO already has URVO in their pocket: no compiler above does
> a better job with the named value than with the unnamed value.
> 3. Not everybody does URVO.
> So a "portable efficiency" hierachy would be:
> 1. If you want 100% portable efficiency, mojo is the way. See
If you want mojo to be taken seriously, you can't oversell it. So, if
you want 100% portable efficiency and are willing to forego some of
the usual expected behaviors from your type, mojo is the way.
Don't get me wrong, I think mojo is quite cool. I haven't decided yet
whether it belongs in boost; that in part depends on documentation and
especially whether we get a clear and up-front description of the
-- David Abrahams dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Building C/C++ Extensions for Python: Dec 9-11, Austin, TX http://www.enthought.com/training/building_extensions.html
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk