This page is a snapshot from the LWG issues list, see the Library Active Issues List for more information and the meaning of NAD Editorial status.
Section: 33.6.8 [futures.shared_future] Status: NAD Editorial Submitter: Thomas J. Gritzan Opened: 2009-04-03 Last modified: 2017-02-03
Priority: Not Prioritized
View all other issues in [futures.shared_future].
View all issues with NAD Editorial status.
In the shared_future class definition in 33.6.8 [futures.shared_future] the move constructor that constructs a shared_future from an unique_future receives the parameter by value. In paragraph 3, the same constructor receives it as const value.
I think that is a mistake and the constructor should take a r-value reference:
[ Batavia (2009-05): ]
We agree with the proposed resolution.Move to Tentatively Ready.
[ 2009-07-05 Daniel notes: ]
The proposed change has already been incorported into the current working draft N2914.
Change the synopsis in 33.6.8 [futures.shared_future]:
Change the definition of the constructor in 33.6.8 [futures.shared_future]: