on Thu Jan 31 2013, Paul Smith <pl.smith.mail-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 10:11 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
on Thu Jan 31 2013, Paul Smith <pl.smith.mail-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:22 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
on Mon Jan 28 2013, Paul Smith <pl.smith.mail-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
This issue has been discussed more than once before, and nothing I say here is my own opinion, so please don't take it out on me.
For example, see N3264 (CH-18 and US-85: Clarifying the state of moved-from objects (Revision 1)):
http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2011/n3264.htm
and Dave confirms that,
I don't want to read into what Dave said too much, because he's here and he can clarify it. But I believe what he said is that specific algorithms, in their own localized context, practically only require destructibility and assignability. And even then,
I was disavowing this part because I don't claim to know it for sure:
it's not something the standard actually guarantees in general, though, and the requirements are still much stricter, perhaps superfluously so.
and I was disavowing this part because I disagree with it:
it's a good selling point for having destructive move semantics -
That doesn't sound like anything I meant to say, but I do agree fully with the resolutions (if not the NB comments) in the paper cited above.
Then what did you mean?
See above.
Actually, that's not really what I asked. Joel asked you if destructibility and assignability is all the standard library needs from moved-from objects. You responded: "That's all the standard library will use."
Yes.
Now you seem to say the opposite.
Where?
I think this was a source of confusion :-)
I can imagine it would be. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost