|
Boost : |
Subject: [boost] [Move] Documentation Notes/Questions
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-10-26 18:53:44
1. In the docs, "comes in handful" => "comes in handy"
2. IMO, it's almost irresponsible to advertise move_iterator without
saying that it's really *only* safe to use when you know
implementation details of the algorithm or function to which you're
passing it. In particular, it must not attempt to copy from any
given position in the sequence more than once.
3. Why doesn't test_move_inserter use std::copy?
4. This sentence doesn't make any sense to me; it needs clarification.
I would make a suggestion, but, well, I don't understand what you're
trying to say
The last one has the same behaviour as std::uninitialized_copy
but since several standand library implementations don't play
very well with move_iterators, this version is a portable
version for those willing to use move iterators.
5. The section on constructor forwarding seems to imply that
constructors are the only thing that will be forwarded, when of
course that's not the case.
6. These sentences don't make sense to me together. They have no
obvious connection to one another. To which limitations are you
referring?
Fortunately, most constructors take arguments by value, by
const-reference or by rvalue reference. If these limitations are
accepted, the forwarding emulation of a N-argument case requires
just N overloads. This library makes this emulation easy with
the help of BOOST_FWD_REF and boost::forward
As far as I can tell from the implementation, BOOST_FWD_REF just
generates a const& in emulation mode, which isn't much of an
emulation at all.
7. "David Abrahams suggested the use of class rv class": too much class
:-)
-- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk