Re: [boost] [move][container] Fast-track reviews for Move and Container?

Subject: Re: [boost] [move][container] Fast-track reviews for Move and Container?
From: Vicente Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-14 04:34:09

Ion Gaztañaga wrote:
> 
> Hi,
> 
> As some others have mentioned, I'd like to ask if Boost.Move and 
> Boost.Container could meet the requirements for a Fast Track review (the 
> Review Wizard has the last word according to the Boost Formal Process, 
> but I'll like to see if there is consensus). Arguments:
> 
> Boost.Move
> 
> -> Only one header (move.hpp)
> -> Technique already in use in Boost (in several detail namespaces). 
> This is a proposal for a common implementation.
> -> Boost-conformant implementation available in sandbox.
> 
> Boost.Container
> 
> -> Most of them standard containers
> -> Node containers are just wrappers over Boost.Intrusive
> -> Most containers (all except stable_vector) were already reviewed for 
> Boost.Interprocess.
> -> Boost-conformant implementation available in sandbox.
> 
> I'll be specially interested in pushing Move first, so that we could 
> have move semantics for Boost 1.41.
> 
> Best,
> 
> Ion
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> 
> 

+1 for a Fast Track review.
IMO it will be better to do them separately.

Best,
Vicente
-- 
View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-move--container--Fast-track-reviews-for-Move-and-Container--tp24966808p24968163.html
Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.