From: "Howard Hinnant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> move_ptr source();
> ...
> move_ptr i(source()); // move with copy syntax from rvalue, ok.
> move_ptr j(i); // error, move with copy syntax from lvalue, bad!
> move_ptr k(move(i)); // move with move syntax from lvalue, ok.
[...]
> I presented code
On Friday, January 31, 2003, at 07:26 AM, Peter Dimov wrote:
From: "Howard Hinnant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Imho, standardized move syntax/semantics is very close to the top of
important issues for C++. I guess that's why I'm pushing for current
smart pointers to get "the right syntax" for move s
From: "Howard Hinnant" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Imho, standardized move syntax/semantics is very close to the top of
> important issues for C++. I guess that's why I'm pushing for current
> smart pointers to get "the right syntax" for move semantics.
But can they get the right syntax without &&
On Thursday, January 30, 2003, at 08:53 PM, Greg Colvin wrote:
Sigh...
To be clear, I'll be happy to see a better syntax
in the next standard -- auto_ptr was the best we
could do with the syntax we had, but ...
Agreed on all points. And glad to have your continued support for a
better tomor
At 06:24 PM 1/30/2003, Howard Hinnant wrote:
>On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 11:19 PM, Greg Colvin wrote:
>
>>My problem with auto_ptr isn't so much the semantics, which
>>have proved useful and are probably the minimum needed to
>>solve the problem that the committee wanted solved. And it
>>is
On Tuesday, January 28, 2003, at 11:19 PM, Greg Colvin wrote:
My problem with auto_ptr isn't so much the semantics, which
have proved useful and are probably the minimum needed to
solve the problem that the committee wanted solved. And it
isn't so much the "move as copy" syntax that Howard disl
