Subject: Re: [boost] [variant] Basic rvalue and C++11 features support
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-11 12:26:46
Paul Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 6:35 PM, Peter Dimov <lists_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > Paul Smith wrote:
> >> Still, there's no need to supress move construction in the absence of
> >> a no-throw default constructible type.
> > No, you could still keep the current behavior.
> I think this was affirmative, but I'm not sure.
It was. :-) No, there's no need to suppress move construction. Not having a
move constructor isn't really any better than having the throwing one.
I'm not sure whether this will be satisfactory from Spirit point of view
though. Do all Spirit uses contain an appropriate fallback type?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk