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

Subject: Re: [boost] [variant] Please vote for behavior
From: Paul Smith (pl.smith.mail_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-01-31 19:07:35

On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> on Thu Jan 31 2013, Paul Smith <pl.smith.mail-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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,
>
> I was disavowing this part because I don't claim to know it for sure:
>
>>>> it's not something the standard actually guarantees in general,
>>>> though, and the requirements are still much stricter, perhaps
>>>> superfluously so.
>
> and I was disavowing this part because I disagree with it:
>
>>>> it's a good selling point for having destructive move semantics -
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> Then what did you mean?
>
> See above.

Actually, that's not really what I asked. Joel asked you if
destructibility and assignability is all the standard library needs
from moved-from objects. You responded: "That's all the standard
library will use." Now you seem to say the opposite. I think this was
a source of confusion :-)

--
Paul Smith