This is the mail archive of the libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the libstdc++ project.

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format:	[Raw text]

Re: [RFA] Algorithms vs operator* and operator==

From: Paolo Carlini <pcarlini at suse dot de>
To: Matt Austern <austern at apple dot com>
Cc: Joe Buck <Joe dot Buck at synopsys dot COM>,libstdc++ <libstdc++ at gcc dot gnu dot org>,chris jefferson <caj at cs dot york dot ac dot uk>
Date: Sun, 07 Nov 2004 10:24:18 +0100
Subject: Re: [RFA] Algorithms vs operator* and operator==
References: <418A2C03.8040500@suse.de> <418A4583.1060207@suse.de> <418D4516.2070108@cs.york.ac.uk> <20041106201358.B31077@synopsys.com> <9B18E3BE-3074-11D9-AEDC-000A95BCF344@apple.com>

Matt Austern wrote:

We're reinventing what Howard Hinnant calls "move semantics".
If we're going down this route, let's build on his work.

I can only agree, in principle: some time ago I pointed Chris to some background literature about "move semantics" ;)

However (comments very appreciated!) I gather that the clean and neat and general way to "move semantics" involves compiler support and Chris wants something rather simple, for the short/medium term. I'm under the impression that the improvement could be rather impressive in some cases, without too much added complexity.

Paolo.

Follow-Ups:
- Re: [RFA] Algorithms vs operator* and operator==
  - From: chris jefferson

References:
- [RFA] Algorithms vs operator* and operator==
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [RFA] Algorithms vs operator* and operator==
  - From: Paolo Carlini
- Re: [RFA] Algorithms vs operator* and operator==
  - From: chris jefferson
- Re: [RFA] Algorithms vs operator* and operator==
  - From: Joe Buck
- Re: [RFA] Algorithms vs operator* and operator==
  - From: Matt Austern

Index Nav:	[Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav:	[Date Prev] [Date Next]	[Thread Prev] [Thread Next]