Subject: Re: [boost] [unordered] a strange limitation for move emulation in Boost.Unordered
From: Daniel James (daniel_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-07-08 10:24:21
On 8 July 2013 13:53, Joaquin M Lopez Munoz <joaquin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Regarding the problem described
> at ticket 6167, I think you can solve it and still have move semantics
> in pre-C+11 compilers by writing this:
This isn't something I want to deal with. I don't think it's worth the effort.
> happens to be more concise than what you currently have.
I actually prefer to be verbose in this case, because I find it easier
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk