Re: [boost] boost::optional -- updates for C++11 move semantics

Subject: Re: [boost] boost::optional -- updates for C++11 move semantics
From: Andrzej Krzemienski (akrzemi1_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-04-10 15:39:30

2014-04-10 20:47 GMT+02:00 Chris Glover <c.d.glover_at_[hidden]>:

> On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 1:26 AM, Antony Polukhin <antoshkka_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>
> > 2013/2/5 Diggory Hardy <lists_at_[hidden]>:
> > > Dear list,
> > >
> > > I wanted something like boost::optional, but with support for move-
> > > construction/assignment, so I went ahead and had a go at patching it.
> >
> > It is a really good addition for boost::optional library, which I'd love
> > to see.
> > As I know, current maintainer of Boost.Optional has not much time, so
> > may be someone will contact him and give a hand in maintaining
> > optional (Diggory, if you are interested, I think you can give it a
> > try and may be become a co-maintainer of optional, if Fernando
> > Cacciola agrees)
> >
> > > Attached is based on boost 1.49 (Ubuntu package). Could someone please
> > review?
> > > I've not contributed to boost before. The changes at least aren't too
> > > complicated, but:
> > > 1) I'm not entirely sure if the move constructor (line 636) and swap
> > function
> > > (line 1046) are implemented in the best way (also see line 279),
> > > 2) and I have no idea how is_[not_]reference_tag (line 486) works.
> > > 3) There should maybe also be a unit test.
> > >
> > > Of course, I am happy for my contributions to be published under the
> > boost
> > > licence.
> >
> > You may see this patch: https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/ticket/1841
> > It proposes same features (and there is an old comment from library
> > maintainer that he will take care of it)
> > If you wish, you may update this patch (change deprecated #ifdef
> > BOOST_HAS_RVALUE_REFS to #ifndef BOOST_NO_RVALUE_REFERENCES), add some
> > unit tests, and may be maybe update it to use Boost.Move.
> >
> > --
> > Best regards,
> > Antony Polukhin
> >
> >
> Hi,
>
> This thread is more than a year old, but seems to have died.  Does anyone
> know what the status of this is?  I just ran into this today and it seems
> to me that with more move-only types out there, optional needs to support
> it.  Is there anything I can do to help get it in?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -- chris
>

Hi Chris,
I recently offered to help with maintaining Boost.Optional, and Fernando
agreed to me being the co-maintainer. One of my goals is to add move
constructor and assignment, but it looks like I also got swamped into
private issues. I am currently stuck on learning Git and all the Modular
Boost procedures.

Regards,
&rzej