"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 006901c2d9c2$1db8fa60$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:006901c2d9c2$1db8fa60$1d00a8c0@pdimov2... > Fernando Cacciola (Home) wrote: > [...] > > One is initialization from a null pointer value, as in: > > > > struct C > > { > > C() : ptr(0) {} > > > > shared_ptr<X> ptr ; > > } ; > > > > this one is very useful because its very idiomatic. > > Use > > C() : ptr() {} > > instead; it is supposed to work for any pointer. > I know I can do this instead. But my point is that we rarely do it :-) Value-initialization is not as idiomatic as it should, specially if you consider the highly generic case of a 'general' pointer (either built-in or smart). Neither is (!p) and (!!p) or (p) instead of (p==0) and (p!=0), unfortunately.
Just take a look at almost any boost code (shared_ptr.hpp, for example); the null pointer value is used a lot (not only in initialization but in testing too) So, having support for null-pointer-value in a smart ptr makes it more 'pointer-like' in light on the de-facto idioms still in broad usage today. Anyway, I agree with Daniel Frey in that putting this into shared_ptr will disallow stricter guidelines. -- Fernando Cacciola _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
