Subject: Re: [boost] [move][container] Review Request (new versions of Boost.Move and Boost.Container in sandbox and vault)
From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-08-24 02:57:51
Jeffrey Hellrung escribió:
> Ion Gaztañaga wrote:
>> ...new versions of libraries Boost.Move and Boost.Container.
> Few comments on proposed Boost.Move:
Thanks for the comments!
> - Make all metafunctions true MPL metafunctions (as mentioned in
> previous postings).
Ok, but I would like to avoid any header dependency with MPL so that
library is minimal.
> - BOOST_COPYABLE_AND_MOVABLE definition scopes relative to the global
> scope, while other macros seems to scope relative to the local scope
> (e.g., the difference between ::boost::rv<TYPE> and boost::rv<TYPE>).
> I'm a stickler for consistency, and would probably consider
> ::boost::rv<TYPE> et al to be safer.
> - What is the rationale for placing BOOST_COPYABLE_AND_MOVABLE and
> BOOST_MOVABLE_BUT_NOT_COPYABLE in the private section of a class
> definition? IIRC, BOOST_ENABLE_MOVE_EMULATION was suppose to go in the
> public section, and I'm generally wondering what the motivations are for
> specifying public or private.
I just wanted to maintain public part as clean as possible, but there is
no strong argument for that.
> - Even though this can be gleaned from the code, I'd like to see a "How
> it works" section, e.g., how exactly does the library coerce rvalues
> into binding to the BOOST_RV_REF overload of operator= rather than the
> BOOST_COPY_ASSIGN_REF overload? Perhaps more generally, I think some
> rationale for why this particular emulation strategy was chosen over
> others would be nice (e.g., the previous proposed Boost.Move used a
> by-value operator= to assign from rvalues efficiently; why the change?
> How does this compare to Adobe's move emulation?). In most other
> respects, I think the documentation is very good and complete.
Ok, I'll add this.
> - I would've renamed BOOST_COPY_REF_N_TEMPL_ARGS to
> BOOST_COPY_ASSIGN_REF_N_TEMPL_ARGS just to be consistent with
> BOOST_RV_REF and BOOST_RV_REF_N_TEMPL_ARGS.
> - Can you comment at all on the stability of the names of the "class
> declaration" macros (e.g., BOOST_MOVABLE_BUT_NOT_COPYABLE)? I recall a
> previous post that suggested alternative names. I have no opinion
> either way, I was just curious on the status of that suggestion.
I don't have any name preference, this can be discussed in the review so
that we find a suitable name.
> - In the clone_ptr example, would it be more correct to check for
> self-assignment in the move assignment operator (as is done in the copy
> assignment operator) rather than not?
> - Overall, great job. If there's anything I can do to help the
> transition, let me know.
> - Jeff
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk