Re: [boost] [move semantics] Do we have any plan for move semantics emulation?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-25 10:39:42

Ion Gaztañaga <igaztanaga_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> I've been intending to get this into Boost:

>

> Looks nice. Any intention to request a review?

Yeah, sorta.  I was planning on doing that after I wrote some code

that uses it in anger.

> Inheritance approach (deriving from moveable) is a good idea, but 

> Boost.Move code wouldn't be compatible with the standard C++0x syntax.

> Is inheritance necessary to get the desired rvalue/lvalue dispatching or 

> is just a convenience? 

IIRC, it's the latter.  It's been a while since I worked on this code,

though.  Oh, the comment says:

  // CRTP base class for conveniently making movable types.  You don't

  // have to use this to make a type movable (if, for example, you don't

  // want the MI non-EBO penalty); you just need to provide the

  // conversion to move_from<Derived> yourself in that case.

  template <class Derived>

  struct movable

> If you get a compiler with rvalue references (let's hope gcc gets

> this soon), and you have a library with Boost.Move it would be nice

> just to recompile. Just my 2 cents. Anyway, nice to know you are

> working on it.

I haven't been, really.  The coding/testing work is done, as far as

I'm concerned.  It needs docs, of course.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com