El 25/08/2014 20:16, Glen Fernandes escribió:
On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:36 AM, Ion Gaztañaga wrote:
Would you agree making boost::movelib::unique_ptr boost::unique_ptr? I can think about some gradual steps.
I like the idea of a boost::unique_ptr in Boost.SmartPtr, but my initial desire was for it to start as a perfect implementation of the std::unique_ptr specification in the standard, followed by modifications that reconcile it with any interface changes proposed in boost::shared_ptr. I also assumed compiler support for the necessary C++11 language features to support that implementation: i.e. while I see value in supporting C++03 via Boost.Move, I don't know if there is such a desire for a boost::unique_ptr C++03 emulation.
I think there is desire such a desire, as expressed several times in the mailing list. That does not mean that we can't have one implementation for c++03 and another one for C++11, if that eases maintenance. The C++11 implementation could avoid depending on Boost.Move, but in any case, I think you should measure the impact of the Boost.Move dependency, as I think it's more lightweight (in preprocessed code size) than including <utility>. Best, Ion