Boost logo

Boost :

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?


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