Re: [boost] [interest] underlying type library

Subject: Re: [boost] [interest] underlying type library
From: Nevin Liber (nevin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-22 13:46:10

On 22 August 2011 10:30, Eric Niebler <eric_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> > Do you still think that is easier than writing the move constructor and
> > assignment operator for classes where the compiler generated one is wrong
> or
> > deleted?
>
> I think it fills a different need.
>

Maybe at this point it would be nice if its proponents came up with a modern
(i.e., why this would still be needed in a world with either C++11 or
Boost.Move) motivating example or two.  The Stepanov paper is a product of
its time and no longer as useful for showing why we still need something
like this.
-- 
 Nevin ":-)" Liber  <mailto:nevin_at_[hidden]>  [phone]