Re: [boost] C++03 unique_ptr emulation

Subject: Re: [boost] C++03 unique_ptr emulation
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-01-09 19:03:11

AMDG

David Abrahams wrote:
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>     
>>> So you're saying, in other words, that "move(x)" really means "you have
>>> permission to move x" but the one I proposed would mean "move it, now."
>>>
>>> OK, good point.
>>>
>>> So what about this horrible little proposal?
>>>
>>>   template <class T>
>>>   struct rv<T> : T
>>>   {
>>>    private:
>>>       rv();
>>>       ~rv();
>>>       rv(rv const&);
>>>       void operator=(rv const&);
>>>   };
>>>
>>>   template <class T>
>>>   boost::enable_if<is_class<T>, rv<T>&>
>>>   move(T& x)
>>>   {
>>>     return static_cast<rv<T>& >(x);
>>>   }
>>>
>>> Does that solve any problems?
>>>       
> Well, I haven't thought this through deeply (nor really tested
> anything), but the idea is that movable types would have a stealing
> conversion from rv<T>& but non-movable types should just use the copy
> ctor that slices off the non-existent derived class.
>   

What if T has a fully generic constructor?

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe