Re: [boost] Report from Mont Tremblant C++ Committee meeting

Howard Hinnant wrote:

On Oct 14, 2005, at 11:54 PM, Joel de Guzman wrote:

[SNIP]

then things just work, O(1). tuple should (will) have an analogous swap (as does tr1::array already - another "tuple like" type). This is already implemented in CodeWarrior Pro 10 (beta). The following:

[SNIP]

So I'm not weighing in on either side of the optional<T&> debate at the moment. All I'm saying is that any argument based on the current behavior of swapping tuple<T&> is going to be false tomorrow (if I can at all influence the committee - and I feel very strongly about this one).

Interesting! Did I missunderstand the example, or your beta implementation of swap() for tr1 tuples rebinds?? TIA -- Fernando Cacciola SciSoft http://fcacciola.50webs.com/