Subject: Re: [boost] [Range] Range adaptor approach for temporary range lifetime issue
From: Michel Morin (mimomorin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-06-25 18:57:29
Neil Groves wrote:
> I understand the rationale entirely and normally this is something I would
> push for. In this case I believe we should be able to iterate upon your
> original solution and take advantage of building some optimizations into the
> range adaptors. I think we can then achieve a zero-cost under normal
> conditions implementation with opt-in explicit moving. I'm hacking up
> something to opt-in once and have the opt-in continue left-wise through the
> application of the | operator.
Hmm, I don't follow what you are trying to implement.
Could you elaborate more? For example, what's the difference between
yours and my implementation (attached in the first post), specifically?
Otherwise, I can't answer your question...
> Since you are ahead of me, in terms of the amount of work you have done on
> this, do you foresee any issue with my slight changes?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk