Re: [boost] Re: Re: SmartPtr (Loki) - auto_ptr/move c'tor issue

[Beman Dawes]

At 01:42 PM 1/28/2003, David B. Held wrote:

>"Greg Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...

>> Also, auto_ptr is an ugly hack that needn't be replicated.
>
>Disavowing your child? ;)

Historical note: auto_ptr<> was one of the few (maybe only) times when the C++ committee as a whole overrode the recommendation of the Library Working Group.

Greg and other people in the LWG didn't like auto_ptr<>, preferring what is now called shared_ptr<>. But we were good soldiers, and accepted the committee's decision. That meant we had to develop auto_ptr<>, even though we didn't like it. A lot of us still think it is a minor smart pointer, and has no place in the standard, except perhaps as an adjunct to more important smart pointers such as shared_ptr<> and eventually smart_ptr<>.

Greg's 1994 proposal, which was the LWG's choice, is still available at http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/1994/N0555.pdf What it calls auto_ptr is now what we call scoped_ptr. Likewise, counted_ptr -> shared_ptr.

--Beman


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost