3 May
2005
3 May
'05
12:42 a.m.
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov@mmltd.net> writes:
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. :-)
I think you could make them move, couldn't you? Anyway, these const rvalues are views and proxies, so you can't gain anything by moving: it would be the same as copying. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com