Subject: Re: [boost] [Range] Range adaptor approach for temporary range lifetime issue
From: Michel Morin (mimomorin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-24 09:19:25
Neil Groves wrote:
> FWIW I like the proposed solution but strongly prefer the
> explicit move. My reasoning is that I prefer to apply the zero overhead
The overhead in implicit move can be removed by explicitly
applying dont_move, which is described in
> and that historically choosing implicit has been associated with
> more design errors.
This is a reasonable rationale, I think.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk