Re: [boost] [RFC][threads] Header/namespace policy draft

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-12-05 13:23:16

on Wed Dec 05 2007, "Giovanni Piero Deretta" <gpderetta-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 3, 2007 4:56 PM, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>
>> on Mon Dec 03 2007, Anthony Williams <anthony_w.geo-AT-yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > However, I did post a message asking for a fast-track review of it so that it
>> > could become a documented part of boost. The only response I got was "there's
>> > another implementation in the sandbox".
>>
>> And that implementation is fatally flawed, I'm ashamed to say.
>
> Are you refrerring to your move.hpp header? 

Yes.

> Why do you think is flawed?
> I've used it and it seemed to work well for all cases I tested
> (It was a move only object, non copiable).

To the best of my memory: movable objects have a non-const RHS copy
ctor, which prevents them from interoperating correctly in standard
containers and other "legacy" code.  Furthermore, they "infect" the
objects that contain them with a non-const RHS copy ctor, too.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com