From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-10-02 16:00:37
So far it's just an exercise. I'll let Dave explain why he can't make
do with auto_ptr<vector>, if he can't.
----- Original Message -----
From: William Kempf <sirwillard_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 2:45 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: auto_array
> --- In boost_at_[hidden], "Greg Colvin" <gcolvin_at_u...> wrote:
> > PS. Forgot operator. See below.
> > > > When I needed such a class, I created auto_array_ptr from
> auto_ptr (cut &
> > > > paste) and changed delete to delete .
> > > >
> > > > Inelegant? yes.
> > > > Quick & painless? yes.
> > > > Did it work? yes.
> > > > Would I rather see a version with a parameterized deleter
> function? Yes.
> Again, I'm not sure how appropriate such a class is. It has very
> little benefit over std::vector (the only benefit that comes to mind
> being the availability of release(), which can be worked around using
> std::auto_ptr<std::vector<T> > if it's that important for
> optimization). I'm not a comittee member, but I don't see such a
> class being added to the standard for this reason. So I don't see
> much reason to spend effort on such a class for Boost either.
> Am I failing to see some compelling reason to include it?
> Bill Kempf
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk