Ion Gaztañaga wrote:
Hi,
As some others have mentioned, I'd like to ask if Boost.Move and Boost.Container could meet the requirements for a Fast Track review (the Review Wizard has the last word according to the Boost Formal Process, but I'll like to see if there is consensus). Arguments:
Boost.Move
-> Only one header (move.hpp) -> Technique already in use in Boost (in several detail namespaces). This is a proposal for a common implementation. -> Boost-conformant implementation available in sandbox.
Boost.Container
-> Most of them standard containers -> Node containers are just wrappers over Boost.Intrusive -> Most containers (all except stable_vector) were already reviewed for Boost.Interprocess. -> Boost-conformant implementation available in sandbox.
I'll be specially interested in pushing Move first, so that we could have move semantics for Boost 1.41.
Best,
Ion _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
+1 for a Fast Track review. IMO it will be better to do them separately. Best, Vicente -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/-move--container--Fast-track-reviews-for-Move-and-Cont... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.