Re: [boost] [Review] Formal Review: Boost.Move

Subject: Re: [boost] [Review] Formal Review: Boost.Move
From: Terry Golubiewski (tjgolubi_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-23 10:45:38

I think for boost developers the use of macros is good.
For my "user" code. I would rather use boost::rv<T>& or just T::rv_ref.
Then (after a few years, unfortunately) I can grep for \<rv\> and replace 
them with &&.
I didn't mean that the macros should be removed, just that I would like the 
option of not using them.
Since rv<T>& represents a standard language construct, and it is already in 
namespace boost, I don't think it needs to be "hidden" in move_detail, which 
suggests that it should not be used by user-code.

terry

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steven Watanabe" <watanabesj_at_[hidden]>
Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Review] Formal Review: Boost.Move

> AMDG
>
> Terry Golubiewski wrote:
>> I agree that boost::rv<> should not be in the move_detail namespace.
>> I found using the macros to be annoying and did not use them.
>> I did add...
>>
>>  typedef boost::rv<T>& rv_ref;
>>
>> ... to my movable classes for convenience.
>> I never felt a need for const_rv_ref though.
>
> The main reason for using the macros is
> to get an automatic upgrade to real
> rvalue references when they are available.
>
> In Christ,
> Steven Watanabe
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>