From: Anthony Williams (anthony_w.geo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-04 13:27:23
Andrey Semashev <andysem <at> mail.ru> writes:
> Anthony Williams wrote:
> > Anthony Williams <anthony_w.geo <at> yahoo.com> writes:
> >> Currently, the boost::move in question is an implementation detail of
> >> thread. It is an oversight that it is in the boost namespace and not the
> >> detail namespace.
> > I have now fixed this: I have renamed it to boost::detail::thread_move (and
> > boost::detail::thread_move_t
> Hmm... I guess that means users are not allowed to move Boost.Thread
> components. That's a shame, because I was using this feature in my
That's not the intention. This is (largely) an implementation detail to make up
for the lack of rvalue references.
"just works" --- I added an explicit test for it this morning.
Moving from an lvalue used to be done with boost::move(x), and is now
boost::detail::thread_move(x) or x.move() (if x is a boost::thread).
> Maybe moving to boost::threads namespace or just renaming them would be
> a better solution?
We could just have boost::thread_move become a documented public interface, and
have the type remain in boost::detail (since it *is* an implementation detail).
Thoughts anyone? Roland?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk