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

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. 

Ah, thanks.

> 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