Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [SPAM (Header)] - Re: [optional] little addition... optional_move_to? - Number of numbers in MIME From exceeds maximum threshold
From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando.cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-03-06 09:08:26

Hi Arno,

> Regular assignment, without killing the source, should work as well, though.

Right... so your very first proposal can't really be replaced by Niels's
poposals optional_swap() and move_to().

So the next big question would be:

With C++0x, optional_swap() and otional_move_to(), both worth by their
own right IMO, will be implementable as free functions, which I prefer
to member functions.

But that can't be implemented today without a move emulation library,
like Ion Gaztañaga's Boost.Move.

Yet even if I wanted to use that, I can't before it is formally added
into boost.

So, the choice *right now* is to either add these two functions as
members or not add them at all.

But if I add them as members today, there would be a slight
inconsistency with optional_assing being a free function instead.

Thus, until move semantics are practically usable (whether via
Boost.Move or C++0x) I would either add the three functions as member
functions, or just your optional_assign() as a free function, but not
two members and one free standing.

What do you think?

Fernando Cacciola
SciSoft Consulting, Founder

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at