Re: [boost] [Boost.Move] A few notes

Subject: Re: [boost] [Boost.Move] A few notes
From: Dan Ivy (danivy.mail_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-01-12 10:49:11

On Thu, Jan 12, 2012 at 5:13 PM, Thomas Klimpel
<Thomas.Klimpel_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Dan Ivy wrote:
>> "Constructor Forwarding" (see
>> <http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_48_0/doc/html/move/construct_forwarding.html>
>> ). So the purpose of "boost::forward" is not to emulate
>> "std::forward" for more general use cases.
>>
>> I don't see it. How is "constructor forwarding" any different than
>> "more general forwarding" in that respect, or, in any other respect?
>
> Well, the above documentation says "Fortunately, most constructors take arguments by value, by const-reference or by rvalue reference. If these limitations are accepted, ...".
>
> Because perfect emulation of "std::forward" is not possible, the above reasoning allows to exclude the case of "non-const reference" arguments. For an arbitrary function, excluding the case of "non-const reference" arguments would be a total no-go.
>
> Regards,
> Thomas
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost

Ok, I see."Constructor" forwarding in constrast to "perfect"
forwarding. So "constructor" is an ajective describing the ""quality""
of forwarding and not the kind of forwarding. This wasn't immediatly
obvious. FWIW I think it's a confusing term.