"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 001b01c2cb95$de5e8fe0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:001b01c2cb95$de5e8fe0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2... > [...] > And finally Mojo approximates: > > public: > mojoized(mojoized const & rhs); // can copy > mojoized(mojoized && rhs); // but can also move for efficiency reasons
Really? http://www.cuj.com/experts/2102/alexandr.htm?topic=experts has: class mojo_ptr : public mojo::enable<mojo_ptr> { // *** Here *** mojo_ptr(const mojo_ptr&); // const sources are NOT accepted public: // source is a temporary mojo_ptr(mojo::temporary<mojo_ptr> src) { mojo_ptr& rhs = src.get(); ... use rhs to perform a destructive copy ... } // source is a function's result mojo_ptr(mojo::fnresult<mojo_ptr> src) { mojo_ptr& rhs = src.get(); ... use rhs to perform a destructive copy ... } ... }; That looks like Howard's protocol to me, unless I'm missing something. I understand Howard's point now, which is the important thing. In fact, my understanding is that Howard's move_ptr *is* more similar to mojo_ptr than auto_ptr, because auto_ptr has auto_ptr(auto_ptr&), which is exactly the thing Howard is crusading against. Dave _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
