Re: [boost] [interest] underlying type library

Subject: Re: [boost] [interest] underlying type library
From: Julian Gonggrijp (j.gonggrijp_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-08-23 04:05:57

Eric Niebler wrote:

> (Julian, I'm having a hard time following the discussion because you're
> replying to multiple people in a single email. Those of us with threaded
> readers would prefer if you replied to us individually.)

I'm sorry for the confusion. I'll reply to every email separately from 
now on. :-)

> Thought: the obvious default implementation should be to simply call
> move, but this gets complicated because move operations can throw. Then
> during unwinding you'll try to destruct an object that isn't in a
> destructible state. You would need to find a way to address the
> exception-safety issues. Perhaps the new noexcept keyword could help here.

Coincidentally I've been thinking along similar lines. Normal copy 
assignment might be a very interesting fallback option for move_raw as 
well. I'll use this in my upcoming proposal.