On 11 Jan 2014 at 10:21, Nat Goodspeed wrote:
* C++11 support needs improving. Others have mentioned more on this than I.
For my purposes in collating results, though, I'd ask you for a bit more detail here.
Sorry, that was sloppy wording on my part. I meant to say something more like this: * Direct support for C++11 needs improving. And by that I mean three main items: (i) Improved conformance with C++11 idioms. (ii) Improved conformance with C++11 std::thread patterns. (iii) Explicit #ifdef support with code for C++11 features. I didn't look closely enough to see if these are already in there, but by this I would mean move construction, initialiser lists, rvalue this overloads, deleting operators where appropriate etc - the usual stuff.
As far as I can tell, you might be alluding to 'explicit operator bool' rather than the C++03 'operator safe_bool' trick. If the review might end up requesting more work from Oliver, it's only fair to be as specific as we can about what work is required. Otherwise it's sort of a "too many notes" level of critique -- not really actionable.
I understand entirely. I didn't go into detail because I didn't think I could improve on what others have said, and I don't have the time to contribute much more detail (I have maths coursework due next week). Hopefully the above clarifies my position. Niall -- Currently unemployed and looking for work. Work Portfolio: http://careers.stackoverflow.com/nialldouglas/