On 25.12.2015 20:23, Oto BREZINA wrote:
> On 2015-12-22 9:40, Stefan Küng wrote:
>> On 22.12.2015 08:24, Oto BREZINA wrote:
>>> On 2015-12-21 21:36, Stefan Küng wrote:
>>>> On 21.12.2015 21:19, Oto BREZINA wrote:
>>>>> On 2015-12-21 19:37, Stefan Küng wrote:
>>>>>> You're right.
>>>>>> I've changed it in r27081.
>>>>> nice one, why to call default constructor with this solution ?
>>>> because with C++11 it's possible, and it avoids code duplication (even
>>>> if the initialization is only one line of code).
>>> Ok. Anyway, I don't see a point there. 1st no other (conversion)
>>> constructor use that, 2nd the only value/member get overwritten
>>> PS: compiler we use is not C++11 yet, and Im trying to make code as
>> If it's not c++11 yet, then why do you need the move constructors?
> Compiler has not full C++11, but got move constructor.
> As I wrote I want to have code to be as close as possible so I can move
> new features, fixes etc easily. I even keep original formatting even it
> is not by our style.
> Let me refraze original question. Should be Default constructor called
> in CSmartHandle(HandleType && h) too, or can be removed in
> CSmartHandle(CSmartHandle && h). I would go for second.
I suggest you make the changes as you need it and then send the file to
me. Then I can commit it if it's ok.
oo // \\ "De Chelonian Mobile"
(_,\/ \_/ \ TortoiseSVN
\ \_/_\_/> The coolest interface to (Sub)version control
/_/ \_\ http://tortoisesvn.net
To unsubscribe from this discussion, e-mail: [dev-unsubscribe_at_tortoisesvn.tigris.org].
Received on 2015-12-26 08:58:43 CET