From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-11 13:22:22
In 2005 David Abrahams presented its implementation of move semantics.
In Jul 24, 2006 Ion Gaztañaga posted
Since then there is some Boost libraries that use this implementation
internnally (I'm thinking of course on Boost.Interprocess, Boost.Thread),
but each one changing the namespace.
In addition Boost.Thread has an internal move class with a simplified
implementation intendeed for the same sematics.
This make very difficult to interact between different libraries using the
same concept but with a different name. In addition there is a risk that
these implementation diverge.
Even if the implementation is only an emulation ot the C++0x move semantics,
this should be better than nothing?
I'd like to reiterate the Ion question, "Do we have any plan for move
semantics emulation ?"
Vicente Juan Botet Escriba
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk