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
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.
On 04/27/2013 02:21 AM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba wrote:
> 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:
> *  Tuple or * Fusion/tuple (it seems that it support or will
> support c++11 move semantics but don't use Boost.Move)
> *  Bind
> *  Function
> *  SmartPtr
> *  Array ?
> Accepted for C++14
> *  optional
> Having an active proposal for C++1y
> *  Heaps
> *  Any
> *  Variant
> *  LockFree
> *  Parameters
> *  Signals?
> Please help me to complete this list.
> Adding constexpre and noexcept would be welcome also.
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk