From: Kevin Atkinson (kevinatk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-03-29 03:42:36
On Wed, 29 Mar 2000, Ian Bruntlett wrote:
> > And this means....... How exactly is auto_ptr not sufficient. I really
> > don't know what you are trying to do. What are your existing practices.
> Well, I don't think auto_ptr<> would be suitable for use when dealing with,
> say O.S. handles.
> I think that to use auto_ptr<> with an O.S. handle I'd have to write a guard
> class for every kind of O.S. handle.
> It would only be a matter of time before individual guard classes started
> having different interfaces and quirks.
> If I use auto_resource<>, I'd only have to implement two member functions,
> reset() and release(). The class interface would be consistent - as long as
> reset() and release() were implemented correctly.
1) I assume you want to free the OS handle when you are done. Well each OS
handle will have to be freed in a different way. So you will still
need to have a different specialization of auto_resource for each handle.
2) You are making things more complicated than they need to be. The only
thing you should really have to worry about is how to free the handle
when you are done with it. All you need to do is implement a single
3) Your module won't extend well to other smart pointers types which are
not as simple as auto_ptr such as boost's referencing counting smart
--- Kevin Atkinson kevinatk_at_[hidden] http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk