2 May
2005
2 May
'05
9:19 p.m.
David Abrahams wrote:
"Eric Niebler" <eric@boost-consulting.com> writes:
True, but much of this is only needed for the *const* rvalue stuff. If there were general agreement that there's fat to trim (is there?), dropping *const* rvalue support would be an easy target.
Don't do it! I plan to write some functions that return const rvalues. Plus, Scott Meyers recommends it, so you'll encounter it.
Const rvalues aren't movable, though. :-)