Subject: Re: [boost] [gil io_new review] Reading images from in-memory sources
From: Kenny Riddile (kfriddile_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-12-06 13:13:59
On 12/6/2010 12:56 PM, Mateusz Loskot wrote:
> I am not sure about it.
> IMO, the situation is is similar to standard algorithms and predicates:
> if a semantic is not specified in details, any valid semantic is
> possible in terms of presented function prototype/class definition, etc.
> Reading about std::remove_if in copy of the n3092, I don't see a word
> about specific move/copy requirements of predicate, however, the
> algorithm is free to make number of copies of the predicate internally.
> Back to the Boost.IOStreams, indeed, the docs are incomplete 
> but as the the author explained on the list, the devices (Source is a
> device) does not have to follow "must be copy-constructibile" but they
> "can be non-copyable", what means that some may be copyable as well.
>  http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2005/11/96479.php
>  http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2005/10/95939.php
> Best regards,
Yes, implementations of a spec are free to implement their requirements
however they like (assuming no other requirements are violated). That
being said, I just looked at the implementation of array_source and it
appears that none of the data in the array is being copied.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk