Re: [boost] Re: auto_array

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]>
To: <boost_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.
> 
> [snip]
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>