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

From: Andrei Alexandrescu (andrewalex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-28 12:08:24

"David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:b16a0k$7sv$1_at_main.gmane.org...
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:009f01c2c6d7$91024ab0$1d00a8c0_at_pdimov2...
> > [...]
> > The first question, of course, is: do you really need SmartPtr<...> to
> > support move semantics (in current C++)?
>
> Why wouldn't you want that?  At the very least, it seems like a glaring
> omission to create a smart pointer framework that can't even emulate
> auto_ptr<>.  Beyond that, it seems that there are resources that would
> benefit from or outright require move semantics to work properly, and
> why wouldn't you want to let SmartPtr<> manage those?

I think what Peter refers to is that C++ might change to make move semantics
easier to implement. That would render the effort unnecessary. If smart_ptr
is to be proposed for standardization, the committee can just as well
package the new smart_ptr together with new language features, notably move
semantics and template typedefs which would fit smart_ptr like a glove.

Andrei