Subject: Re: [boost] [core] A better boost::swap
From: Pete Bartlett (pete_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-12-28 13:42:54
>I'm sure Antony meant to change the implementation to match the ideas in
Ion's code, not use >the test implementation he showed.
But isn't the whole idea to depend on Boost.Move so that swap can benefit
from move emulation?
As Peter said, a new Boost.Swap could depend on Move, but Core should not.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk