At 10:08 AM 1/28/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >b16a0k$7sv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b16a0k$7sv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... >> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >> 009f01c2c6d7$91024ab0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:009f01c2c6d7$91024ab0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2... >> > [...] >> > The first question, of course, is: do you really need SmartPtr<...> to >> > support move semantics (in current C++)? >> >> Why wouldn't you want that? At the very least, it seems like a glaring >> omission to create a smart pointer framework that can't even emulate >> auto_ptr<>. Beyond that, it seems that there are resources that would >> benefit from or outright require move semantics to work properly, and >> why wouldn't you want to let SmartPtr<> manage those? > >I think what Peter refers to is that C++ might change to make move semantics >easier to implement. That would render the effort unnecessary. If smart_ptr >is to be proposed for standardization, the committee can just as well >package the new smart_ptr together with new language features, notably move >semantics and template typedefs which would fit smart_ptr like a glove.
Also, auto_ptr is an ugly hack that needn't be replicated. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
