I think for boost developers the use of macros is good. For my "user" code. I would rather use boost::rv<T>& or just T::rv_ref. Then (after a few years, unfortunately) I can grep for \<rv\> and replace them with &&. I didn't mean that the macros should be removed, just that I would like the option of not using them. Since rv<T>& represents a standard language construct, and it is already in namespace boost, I don't think it needs to be "hidden" in move_detail, which suggests that it should not be used by user-code. terry ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steven Watanabe" <watanabesj@gmail.com> Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lib.boost.devel To: <boost@lists.boost.org> Sent: Saturday, May 22, 2010 6:17 PM Subject: Re: [Review] Formal Review: Boost.Move
AMDG
Terry Golubiewski wrote:
I agree that boost::rv<> should not be in the move_detail namespace. I found using the macros to be annoying and did not use them. I did add...
typedef boost::rv<T>& rv_ref;
... to my movable classes for convenience. I never felt a need for const_rv_ref though.
The main reason for using the macros is to get an automatic upgrade to real rvalue references when they are available.
In Christ, Steven Watanabe
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost