Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Formal Review: Boost.Move
From: Ion GaztaÃ±aga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-18 09:26:54
On 16/05/2010 1:26, vicente.botet wrote:
> * The use of the is_movable metafunction is not clear in the
> documentation. The name let think to a concept check, that is, is T a
> model of the Movable concept? But the check is related to whether T
> is convertible to rv<T>&, and it seems you uses it in Boost.Container
> to avoid conflicts using enable_if/disable_if. Could you clarify
> this? Should is_movable be renamed to a more specific name?
Is not clear and after discussing it in previous mails, I think it
should be present only for C++03 with another name. It detects whether a
class implements move emulation functions. It's useful to sfinae out
some overloads in generic functions (eg. push_back in vector, since
vector<int> should not instantiate at all any rv<int> type).
> * Should the use of BOOST_RV_REF in template classes be protected
> with is_movable?
> * What returns is_movable if BOOST_ENABLE_MOVE_EMULATION is not
> defined for compilers with rvalue references?
I don't have anything in addition to Jeffrey's explantions for those.
> * Could you add the requirements of a Movable type? Could we have a
> trait for this?
Yes, please see my previous post replying Jeffrey.
> * I don't know if the next metafunction is correct in C++0x,
> If correct, could it be used to replace the macro BOOST_RV_REF?
See Jeffrey's explanation. Adding more metafunctions would be correct if
we find they might be useful for generic programming. But I don't know
if rv<T> & is the correct answer for generic programming using C++0x
(add_rvalue_reference, remove_rvalue_reference, is_rvalue_reference). We
still don't have enough experience with both rv references and this
emulation to know the answer.
> * BTW, why BOOST_RV_REF_2_TEMPL_ARGS and BOOST_RV_REF_3_TEMPL_ARGS
> are needed?
Preprocessor limitations, extra parens won't fix ;-)
Regarding the use of Boost.Preprocessor, I aim was to write Boost.Move
with very few dependencies. Although support for Boost.MPL was requested
in previous discussions, I would like to get this without header
dependencies, but I guess Boost.TypeTraits will also depend on MPL,
although that could be fixed because traits might go to TypeTraits.
> * has_nothrow_move. What are the expected some performance
> improvements. of movable classes that specialize this to true? Could
> an example be added?
> * As the standard uses these more specific ones template<class T>
> struct has_nothrow_move_constructor;
> template<class T> struct has_nothrow_move_assign;
> Shouldn't Boost.Move use these
Yes, at least if they are stable in the draft. And maybe they should en
end in Boost.TypeTraits, along with has_trivial_destructor after move,
which can be used to avoid calling destructors in containers when an
element is moved and its destructor does not need to release any resource.
> Implementation * I would like to know the reason to don't use
> is_convertible from Boost.TypeTraits and define your own. * The same
> for identity?
Dependency issues, but I have no problem to change this.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk