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

Subject: Re: [boost] [move][container] Fast-track reviews for Move and Container?
From: Thomas Klimpel (Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-17 10:53:54

Ion Gaztañaga wrote:
> 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.

...

> I'll be specially interested in pushing Move first, so that we could
> have move semantics for Boost 1.41.

+9 for this.

But I have a question about Boost.Move:
Because the problem Boost.Move addresses is so important, and Boost.Move wasn't around, my existent code uses efficient implementations of "swap" as a substitute. The documentation shows that Boost.Move can be used to implement an efficient swap. But what about the other direction? Can Boost.Move exploit an existent efficient swap?

Regards,
Thomas