Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber review January 6-15

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost.Fiber review January 6-15
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-01-23 02:02:18

Le 23/01/14 01:34, Nat Goodspeed a écrit :
> On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 1:54 PM, Vicente J. Botet Escriba
> <vicente.botet_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>> Le 22/01/14 17:07, Nat Goodspeed a écrit :
>>> Moreover (a key point) anyone invoking the Fiber API who is
>>> constrained to C++03 features will not have movable-only types. In
>>> that scenario, fiber(bind(callable, arg1, arg2)) *is* completely
>>> equivalent to fiber(callable, arg1, arg2).
>> I disagree. We have Boost/Move.
> Hmm, okay.
>
>>> So when discussing the requested variadic fiber constructor, I will
>>> tease apart the C++11 and C++03 cases. I feel pretty comfortable
>>> stating that the former is much more important than the latter.
>> Agreed, but at least the C++03 must support movables types.
> On seeing your response above, my impulse is to think you mean: "at
> least with a C++11 compiler, the fiber constructor must support
> movable types." Please clarify?
>
> If in fact you mean C++03, may we interpret that as: "if the Fiber
> library provides a C++03-compatible variadic fiber constructor, that
> constructor must support movable types" ?
>
I meant these constructor
template <class F>
fiber<BOOST_RV_REF(F) f);
template <class F>
fiber<F& f);

But these one is also posible

template <class F, class A1>

figer(BOOST_FWD_REF(F)  f,  BOOST_FWD_REF(A1)  p1);

Vicente