Re: [boost] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO

Subject: Re: [boost] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
From: Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira (vini.ipsmaker_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-27 14:31:38

2015-08-27 9:58 GMT-03:00 Hartmut Kaiser <hartmut.kaiser_at_[hidden]>:

> Third, the terminology 'consuming' and 'non-consuming' future does not make
> any sense (to me). More importantly it is by no means Standard-terminology
> -
> thus reasoning in terms of those makes it much more difficult for us to
> talk
> about the same thing.
>

I thought this was standard terminology.

Anyway, maybe I can help here. I know Niall had played with Rust for
sometime[1] (and end up eventually hating for the lack of an asynchronous
foundation[2]). I too end up playing with Rust for some time and maybe
that's why I understood Niall without trouble.

Anyway, moving on. Rust "stole" lots of terms from previously established
languages. From C++, there was also move semantics. In Rust, move semantics
was absorbed way earlier than in C++, so there was chance to make better
design. One example where Rust design is superior is the fact that several
errors discussed in this thread would be detected at compile-time, not
runtime.

Anyway, a value that was consumed is a value that cannot be used again.
There are consuming operations that will consume the value. It's closely
related to the move idea, where the moved value is left in an unspecified
state. There are moving operations and there are consuming operations, but
consuming operations work on values other than rvalues too.

Imagine a range that invalidates the original container. It *consumes* the
container.

Does that explanation help?

[1] https://plus.google.com/+nialldouglas/posts/AXFJRSM8u2t
[2] This is just my impression, I have no evidence

-- 
Vinícius dos Santos Oliveira
https://about.me/vinipsmaker