Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [move] move assignment from lvalue returned by func (was: one more dumb question)
From: DE (satan66613_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-02-26 15:11:55

on 26.02.2010 at 21:27
 Jeffrey Hellrung wrote :
> Yes, the type of an rvalue can be const-qualified, but the current
> mechanism cannot distinguish between a const-qualified rvalue and a
> const-qualified lvalue. So only returning by non-const value will work.

> For a simple demonstration of the basic mechanism (untested, so not sure
> if it will compile, but it should give the basic idea)
> [code here]
oh now i get it! i didn't realize there are operator rv<T>& and its
const counterpart hidden behind the macros
thanks for your effort explaining this

> I don't have any simpler solutions, only a spectrum of solutions to
> select the best set of tradeoffs for a given situation. Which, in some
> sense, is more complicated.
so summing it all up i say that this solution is far too tricky to be
no offence
it seems to me too restrictive and too incomplete
the infrastructure is too complicated
on the other hand i guess forcing users to return something like rv<t>
from functions like this

  rv<my_type> foo();

is not an option

another question arises: who is the target audience (aka users) of
this lib?


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