Subject: Re: [boost] [move] Unifying move emulation code in boost
From: Ion GaztaÃ±aga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-05 16:22:22
David Abrahams wrote:
> That can easily be overcome. Adobe insists on Regular for reasons of
> purity, not practicality. The important thing about the Adobe approach
> is that for movable/copyable types, they don't have adverse effects on
> their containers, derived classes, or containing classes: they have
> regular copy ctors and assignment with const rhs. That has huge
> implications for interoperability with code that isn't specifically
> move-aware in whatever particular way we choose to express "move-aware"
> in C++03.
Ok. Thanks for the explanation.
> What's really needed before I'd be happy to sign off on it is **a
> complete suite of correct tests**. That's much more important to me
> even than having an implementation that passes the tests :-)
Ok. I'll write some and a bit of Quickbook documentation.
>> If the header contains enough for everyone, I'm ready to write some
>> documentation and tests. I know that this Move library is not what
>> many expect (common macros and utilities to write the same code for
>> rvalue-enabled and older compilers)
> That can come later. We have to get the C++03 implementation right
> before it can be macro-ized.
> Thanks for working on this,
Thanks for your help. Once we have some basic stuff in the library, it
would be great if we could add the "additional work/thinking" you've
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk