Re: [boost] Smart Pointer new/Forwarding Problem Solved (by Force)

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-29 22:17:10

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> David Abrahams wrote:
>
>> Just in case it wasn't obvious: we should do this across all
>> the smart pointers.  It looks like scoped_ptr could use the same
>> treatment, for example.
>
> scoped_ptr already takes its auto_ptr argument by value, so it doesn't need 
> a separate rvalue overload. There should be no need to make the constructor 
> implicit since a scoped_ptr cannot be used as a function argument because of 
> its noncopyability. 

Duh.  Thanks for setting me straight.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com