Re: [boost] Re: Re: scoped_ptr::reset and auto_ptr

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-02 07:47:46

From: "Howard Hinnant" <hinnant_at_[hidden]>
>
> I can't speak for the rest of the people that were in the room that
> day.  But the opinion I voiced to others in that room is that we should
> proceed with caution.  I did not (and do not) want to standardize the
> wrong smart pointers, and I remain unconvinced that all of the smart
> pointer issues are sufficiently ironed out.  That effectively had me
> saying: No, I don't want to standardize scoped_ptr and shared_ptr.  It
> is not because I think these classes aren't worth standardizing.  It is
> because I don't think the subject is yet mature enough.  For one thing,
> I think move semantics (if it comes to be) could have an impact on
> smart pointer design.  Template typedefs are another possibly
> significant influence.  And (templated) opaque typedefs yet a third
> potentially influential factor. [...]

You are right that the subject is not mature enough... but not for the
reasons you mentioned (IMO). Move semantics do not affect shared_ptr as it's
CopyConstructible; auto_ptr and move_ptr are not. I don't see how template
typedefs can affect shared_ptr, either. You may be able to arrive at
shared_ptr<T> via a class template or via a template typedef, but once you
are there, you need to specify semantics either way, so what's the
difference?