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.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Steven Watanabe" <watanabesj_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 6:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Review] Formal Review: Boost.Move
> 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:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk