Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Third release is ready, requesting preliminary review
From: vicente.botet (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-03 15:55:13

----- Original Message -----
From: "DE" <satan66613_at_[hidden]>
To: "Stewart, Robert" <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, May 03, 2010 9:02 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [xint] Third release is ready,requesting preliminary review

> on 03.05.2010 at 22:07
> Stewart, Robert wrote :
>> DE wrote:
>>> i agree with almost all you've just said
>>> however chad not only stated that his cow is faster (a pun intended)
>>> but also provided numbers (test results -- read "the proof")
>>> so that's you who must prove the cow is slower than whatsoever or
>>> misapplied, not chad
>> I've already noted that his application of move semantics was being
>> reviewed. (I think it was Jeffrey Hellrung who was looking into
>> it.) I also noted that we'd like to understand why. Those points
>> remain to be fulfilled, but it doesn't make our approach faulty.
> my point is if you want to "understand why" then why don't you look at
> the sources instead of making guesses? that will answer your
> question(s) and make the discussion more constructive

In a post from yesterday it was said that the arithmetic operators were not implemented following move semantics. The signatures were given, but no replay to this post has been done yet. I'm sure that the poster was looking into the sources.


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