Re: [boost] Report from Mont Tremblant C++ Committee meeting

From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-14 04:28:22

Fernando Cacciola wrote:

> It could help if you voiced your opinion on the problems posed by your model 
> (that is, that the effect of assignment would depend on the lvalue being 
> absent or not).  The only thing I heard from you on this point since I 
> raised it for the first time years ago was "it doesn't look good, right". If 
> this problem had not existed we wouldn't be having this discussion. The only 
> way out I see is to figure out how to weight the problems and cons of each 
> model. Simply restating the cons of one of them isn't enough.

Well, first of all, let me apologize for my tone and giving up too
easily. FWIW, if I recall correctly what I said was more than
"it doesn't look good", but I don't recall now. As far as I'm
concerned, I always thought that what I was against was (and is)
for special handling and special cases. I've always stated that
the tuple<T&> behavior should be the model (actually, to be more
basic: struct { T& x; } ). The nullability aspect is *besides*
the point and has nothing at all to do with the rebinding semantics.
I remember saying "when in doubt, do as the structs do. There's
definitely some doubt.

Regards,
-- 
Joel de Guzman
http://www.boost-consulting.com
http://spirit.sf.net