Re: [boost] [variant] Please vote for behavior

Subject: Re: [boost] [variant] Please vote for behavior
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-30 20:22:19

on Mon Jan 28 2013, Paul Smith <pl.smith.mail-AT-gmail.com> wrote:

> This issue has been discussed more than once before, and nothing I say
> here is my own opinion, so please don't take it out on me.
> For example, see N3264 (CH-18 and US-85: Clarifying the state of
> moved-from objects (Revision 1)):
>
> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2011/n3264.htm
>
>> and Dave confirms that,
>
> I don't want to read into what Dave said too much, because he's here
> and he can clarify it. But I believe what he said is that specific
> algorithms, in their own localized context, practically only require
> destructibility and assignability. And even then, it's not something
> the standard actually guarantees in general, though, and the
> requirements are still much stricter, perhaps superfluously so. That's
> frustrating, no doubt about it, and it's a good selling point for
> having destructive move semantics - not for breaking the rules.

That doesn't sound like anything I meant to say, but I do agree fully
with the resolutions (if not the NB comments) in the paper cited above.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
BoostPro Computing                  Software Development        Training
http://www.boostpro.com             Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers  C++  Boost