On Monday, February 3, 2003, at 12:53 PM, David B. Held wrote:
No, I did not read your question that way. No apologies necessary at all.So, apologies to Howard if it looked like I was calling him a copycat. That was not my intent in the least.
I just reread Andrei's Mojo article, at least the part under "Application: auto_ptr's Cousin and Mojoed Containers". It looks to me (after a very superficial read) like move_ptr and mojo_ptr are essentially expressing the same idea."I plan to implement Mojo in SmartPtr. Does it follow the protocol you propose, or should I consider additional factors not yet discussed?"
I'm not sure that the evolutionary taxonomy of this is worth too many more electrons.In fact, my understanding is that Howard's move_ptr *is* more similar to mojo_ptr than auto_ptr, because auto_ptr has auto_ptr(auto_ptr&), which is exactly the thing Howard is crusading against.
But I'm happy to have a cool new signature! :-)
-Howard
*******************************************************
* *
* Do not move from an lvalue with copy syntax. *
* *
*******************************************************
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
