Re: [Boost-users] [Review] Formal Review: Boost.Move

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] [Review] Formal Review: Boost.Move
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-23 15:09:32

AMDG

Ion Gaztañaga wrote:
> On 23/05/2010 14:38, Neil Groves wrote:
>> So am I correct in stating that the move emulation is therefore
>> fundamentally relying upon undefined behaviour with no performant
>> alternative that uses the same interface?
>
> It seems so, but I'm not sure. We'll need to confirm this with a 
> language expert. If the problem is GCC, we can workaround it. 
> Hopefully move emulation works nearly for all compilers and in the 
> future all of them will have rvalus references, so I don't think we 
> have a big issue here.

I'm wondering whether it would be better to
use something like

template<class T>
struct rv {
    T* impl;
    operator const T&() const;
};

template<class T>
T& unwrap_rv(rv<T>&);

I know the interface isn't quite as nice, and
there will be more cases where overload resolution
needs a hand, but it seems safer.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe