[boost] [thread] Conformance with N2497 move semantics

Subject: [boost] [thread] Conformance with N2497 move semantics
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-12 04:40:35

Hi Anthony,

N2497 includes the following thread constructor overloadings
    template <class F> explicit thread(F f);
    template <class F, class ...Args> thread(F&& f, Args&&... args);
    void swap(thread&&);

Boost.Threads try to conforms to N2497 as muh as possible. Boost.Threads 
defines already

#ifdef BOOST_HAS_RVALUE_REFS
template <class F> thread(F&& f);
#else
#ifdef BOOST_NO_SFINAE
template <class F> explicit thread(F f);
#else
template <class F>explicit thread(F f,
        typename disable_if<
            boost::is_convertible<F&, detail::thread_move_t<F> >,
                dummy* >::type=0);
#endif
template <class F>explicit thread(detail::thread_move_t<F> f);
template <class F,class ...Args> thread(F f, Args... args)

I have some questions.
Is there any deep raison for which
    template <class F> explicit thread(F f);
should not always  be defined?

Is there any deep raison to emulate
    template <class F,class ...Args> thread(F f, Args... args)
instead of
    template <class F,class ...Args> thread(F&& f, Args... args)

Could
    template <class F, class ...Args> thread(F&& f, Args&&... args);
rally be emulated?

You provide  'void swap(thread&)'. Could  'void swap(thread&&)' be emulated?

Do you know if the following overloadings are taken in account by the 
boost::swap utility?
    void swap(thread&  x, thread&  y);
    void swap(thread&& x, thread&  y);
    void swap(thread&  x, thread&& y);

Thanks in advance,

Vicente