Boost logo

Boost :

From: Joel de Guzman (joel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-09 21:28:41

Eric Niebler wrote:
> IIUC, this has implications for people wanting to write TR1-style
> function objects today. I think Shunsuke may be right in that we need an
> rvalue_wrapper so that it is possible to write function objects that
> will continue to work unmodified in C++0x. That is, my use of
> reference_wrapper to carry lvalue-ness has it backwards. T const &
> should be assumed to be a const lvalue, because it will mean that
> unambiguously in C++0x.
> FWIW, I think fusion::make_vector()'s use of reference_wrapper is also
> incorrect. :-(

Which was taken from Boost.Tuple by Jaakko, FWIW. Interesting... :)


Joel de Guzman

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at