From: "David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > "Greg Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > > At 10:08 AM 1/28/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > > >[...] > > >I think what Peter refers to is that C++ might change to make > > >move semantics easier to implement. That would render the effort > > >unnecessary. > > Only if we don't want smart_ptr for another year or two, or whenever > compiler vendors start shipping compilers that implement the new move > syntax, and people start using them in force.
I don't see why. You'll have a C++98 smart_ptr. It won't be able to emulate auto_ptr<>, that's all. If your user community tells you that auto_ptr emulation is important for them, you'll try to add it. If other features are more important to your users, you'll work on those instead. Like extend the COM policy to use QueryInterface on conversions, for example. Or adding deep const. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
