Joaquín Mª López Muñoz <joaquin@tid.es> writes:
David Abrahams ha escrito:
Hi,
I'm just wondering if the deafening silence indicates a lack of interest or whether something else is going on? Feedback would be appreciated.
I've got move semantics supports in the roadmap for my indexed_set (likely to be renamed multi_index_container) library, so your code can be (for me at least) of great value.
Great!
Quick questions:
* Seems like your library does not support the temporary return part (I mean, the equivalent of mojo::fnresult). Is this right? If so, are you planning to add support for this part as well?
I don't know what you mean. That hack is unneccessary with my library. It's non-intrusive on clients of the movable class (unless they explicitly want to distinguish rvalue from const lvalue arguments for moving purposes). To return a movable class rvalue efficiently, you just return it. Try the move.cpp test with --verbose-test on GCC to see what I mean.
* In those classes with fast swap, is this a right approach to implement the move constructor?
X(move_from<X> rhs) { this.swap(rhs); }
Not usually; that will default-initialize all bases and members before doing the swap. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com