Re: [boost] [GSoC 2013] Moving to Boost to Boost.Move

Subject: Re: [boost] [GSoC 2013] Moving to Boost to Boost.Move
From: Nasos Iliopoulos (nasos_i_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-04-27 09:05:36

Hello,

uBlas would also benefit from that.

Although there is already an older implementation in place it can be 
extended for more uBlas containers.

Thanks for bringing it up because I was thinking last night that we 
hadn't included that in the list provided on the boost gsoc ideas.

-Nasos

On 04/27/2013 02:21 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> Hi,
>
> In case there are some students that are looking for a last idea.
>
> There a re a lot of Boost libraries that don't support move semantics.
> It would be nice if one student propose to adapt the some of the 
> existing libraries.
>
> The idea is to use Boost.Move so that an emulation is provided for 
> compilers not supporting rvalue references.
>
> Some of the libraries (let me know if I'm wrong are). My priority is 
> given between [], lower numbers means higher priority. Of course 
> others would have others priorities:
>
> C++11
> * [0] Tuple or * Fusion/tuple (it seems that it support or will 
> support c++11 move semantics but don't use Boost.Move)
> * [0] Bind
> * [1] Function
> * [2] SmartPtr
> * [8] Array ?
>
> Accepted for C++14
> * [5] optional
>
> Having an active proposal for C++1y
> * [3] Heaps
> * [6] Any
> * [7] Variant
>
>
> Other
> * [4] LockFree
> * [9] Parameters
> * [10] Signals?
>
> Please help me to complete this list.
>
> Adding constexpre and noexcept would be welcome also.
>
> Best,
> Vicente
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>
>