on Thu Jan 31 2013, Paul Smith <pl.smith.mail-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
On Thu, Jan 31, 2013 at 3:37 AM, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
On the other hand we have destructive move-semantics,
In what sense are you claiming that we "have" destructive move-semantics? Nobody has ever implemented or even fully-specified destructive move semantics AFAIK. Destructive move semantics are (at this time) nothing more than a fantasy some people have about what they think would be a better world.
It's a figure of speech. I wasn't saying we actually "have" them - I was defining a term and making a distinction.
Ah, thanks.
You omitted the rest of the sentence.
Yes, because I couldn't understand it without understanding "have." You seem to be saying that you can't understand "have" without the rest of the sentence ;-) -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing Software Development Training http://www.boostpro.com Clang/LLVM/EDG Compilers C++ Boost