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)):
>>>>> 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk