Re: [boost] [Range] Range adaptor approach for temporary range lifetime issue

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
> principle,

The overhead in implicit move can be removed by explicitly
applying dont_move, which is described in
    http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel/231687/focus=231947

> and that historically choosing implicit has been associated with
> more design errors.

This is a reasonable rationale, I think.

Regards,
Michel