Re: [boost] [move semantics] Containers supporting movable-only types

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-26 09:16:07

Daniel James wrote:
> 2008/6/23 David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>:
>> A few litmus tests we could consider are the ability to work with
>> http://www.coderage.com/move_ptr, the usual std::auto_ptr
>> implementations, and the one proposed in
>> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.std.c++/msg/71e5799e3c1b70c7
> 
> I don't expect to support everything that's out there. But
> std::auto_ptr is an important case.

I don't mean we should have OOTB support for everything out there, but
the ability to use external adaptation to make everything out there work
is at least a reasonable thing to think about.

>>> I think that's pretty much what Ion is proposing for the Interprocess
>>> containers.
>> Well, yeah, but I mean for the regular std:: containers
> 
> You might have confused the Interprocess containers with the Intrusive
> ones. The Interprocess containers are STL containers with full
> allocator support. This is needed because most STL implementations
> only have the bare minimum so they won't work with the Interprocess
> allocators. There's some documentation at: http://tinyurl.com/4jyocx
> and http://tinyurl.com/3vxrt2

Yep, I guess I had forgotten that.  See my other recent posting, too:
http://news.gmane.org/find-root.php?message_id=%3c486394D0.3040500%40boostpro.com%3e

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com