Subject: Re: [boost] [variant] Please vote for behavior
From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-31 15:12:47
on Thu Jan 31 2013, Paul Smith <pl.smith.mail-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:37 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>> On the other hand we have destructive move-semantics,
>> In what sense are you claiming that we "have" destructive
>> move-semantics? Nobody has ever implemented or even fully-specified
>> destructive move semantics AFAIK. Destructive move semantics are (at
>> this time) nothing more than a fantasy some people have about what they
>> think would be a better world.
> It's a figure of speech. I wasn't saying we actually "have" them - I
> was defining a term and making a distinction.
> You omitted the rest of the sentence.
Yes, because I couldn't understand it without understanding "have." You
seem to be saying that you can't understand "have" without the rest of
the sentence ;-)
-- 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