On 3/9/2011 1:41 PM, Ion Gaztañaga wrote:
El 09/03/2011 21:32, Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. escribió:
By "should fail", you mean "should fail to compile, according to the standard", and here "value" is not an object of the std::list value_type, but some other type that's convertible to value_type, correct? Again, just to clarify.
Right. The idea is also to have some macro to ease writing the same code for both C++03 and C++0x, e.g., priv_push_back receives a BOOST_FWD_REF param that can be forwarded both in C++03 and C++0x.
It seems reasonable for priv_push_back to have a common implementation between C++03 and C++0x. I believe the C++03 version should probably take it's parameter as U& rather than U const &, to preserve constness, so you might need to add an additional forwarding reference macro. I think I suggested this also in the Boost.Move review discussion. My lack of creativity has me using FWD2_REF( U ) expanding to U& in C++03 and U&& in C++0x. Are you also aiming to use macros to generate the various push_back overloads as well? That could be challenging to design a reasonable interface for, and I'm not necessarily opposed to the #ifndef BOOST_NO_RVALUE_REFERENCES / #else / #endif (as I'm not sure if a macro solution would look any better). - Jeff