From: Jeff Paquette (paquette_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-02 12:55:07
When I needed such a class, I created auto_array_ptr from auto_ptr (cut &
paste) and changed delete to delete .
Quick & painless? yes.
Did it work? yes.
Would I rather see a version with a parameterized deleter function? Yes.
-- Jeff Paquette paquette at mediaone.net http://www.atnetsend.net > -----Original Message----- > From: William Kempf [mailto:sirwillard_at_[hidden]] > Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 10:12 AM > To: boost_at_[hidden] > Subject: [boost] Re: auto_array > > > --- In boost_at_[hidden], "David Abrahams" <abrahams_at_m...> wrote: > > Hi, > > > > I realize that smart pointer development is effectively stalled > because we > > only want to build the perfect, infinitely parametrizable smart > pointer once > > at this point<0.1wink>, but I find myself in need of auto_array (no, > > scoped_array/shared_array won't do - I need to release ownership). > I just > > wanted to put that feature request into the giant river we've > already got > > ;-) > > Won't std::vector work for you? Though not currently standardized, > there's a DR to insure, and all known implementations todate work > with: > > legacy_func(&vec); > > At least with the obvious safe guards (the vector must have a size > greater than 0, for instance). > > Given this, there's very few reasons to need an auto_array (lack of a > release() is one of the few I can think of right off the top of my > head). > > Bill Kempf > > > >
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk