|
|
Boost : |
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-31 07:26:48
From: "Howard Hinnant" <hinnant_at_[hidden]>
>
> Imho, standardized move syntax/semantics is very close to the top of
> important issues for C++. I guess that's why I'm pushing for current
> smart pointers to get "the right syntax" for move semantics.
But can they get the right syntax without &&? With &&, it's trivial.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk