----- Original Message ----- From: "OvermindDL1" <overminddl1@gmail.com> To: <boost-users@lists.boost.org>; <boost@lists.boost.org>; <boost-announce@lists.boost.org> Sent: Friday, May 07, 2010 5:36 AM Subject: [boost] [Review] Formal Review: Boost.Move
Greetings Boost Developers and Users,
It's my pleasure to announce that the review of Ion Gaztañagas' Move library starts May 10th and lasts until May 24th, 2010, unless an extension occurs.
Hi Ion, I have some questions and comments before writting a review. * The use of the is_movable metafunction is not clear in the documentation. The name let think to a concept check, that is, is T a model of the Movable concept? But the check is related to whether T is convertible to rv<T>&, and it seems you uses it in Boost.Container to avoid conflicts using enable_if/disable_if. Could you clarify this? Should is_movable be renamed to a more specific name? * Should the use of BOOST_RV_REF in template classes be protected with is_movable? * What returns is_movable if BOOST_ENABLE_MOVE_EMULATION is not defined for compilers with rvalue references? * Could you add the requirements of a Movable type? Could we have a trait for this? * I don't know if the next metafunction is correct in C++0x, // emulation template <typename T> struct rvalue_ref { typedef ::BOOST_MOVE_NAMESPACE::rv< T>& type; }; // C++0x template <typename T> struct rvalue_ref { typedef T&& type; }; If correct, could it be used to replace the macro BOOST_RV_REF? * BTW, why BOOST_RV_REF_2_TEMPL_ARGS and BOOST_RV_REF_3_TEMPL_ARGS are needed? #define BOOST_RV_REF(TYPE)\ ::BOOST_MOVE_NAMESPACE::rv< TYPE >& \ // #define BOOST_RV_REF_2_TEMPL_ARGS(TYPE, ARG1, ARG2)\ ::BOOST_MOVE_NAMESPACE::rv< TYPE<ARG1, ARG2> >& \ // #define BOOST_RV_REF_3_TEMPL_ARGS(TYPE, ARG1, ARG2, ARG3)\ ::BOOST_MOVE_NAMESPACE::rv< TYPE<ARG1, ARG2, ARG3> >& \ // * has_nothrow_move. What are the expected some performance improvements. of movable classes that specialize this to true? Could an example be added? * As the standard uses these more specific ones template <class T> struct has_nothrow_move_constructor; template <class T> struct has_nothrow_move_assign; Shouldn't Boost.Move use these * What about the other move traits? Couldn't we let the user specialize them also? template <class T> struct has_move_constructor; template <class T> struct has_move_assign; template <class T> struct has_trivial_move_constructor; template <class T> struct has_trivial_move_assign; * It would be great to see what is specific to the Boost.Move that doesn't appear in C++0x; for example is_movable, has_nothrow_move. Implementation * I would like to know the reason to don't use is_convertible from Boost.TypeTraits and define your own. * The same for identity? Best, _____________________ Vicente Juan Botet Escribá http://viboes.blogspot.com/