Date: 2001-04-04 09:07:57
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Dimov [mailto:pdimov_at_[hidden]]
> From: "David Abrahams" <abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> > From: "Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]>
> > > The downside is that it will break some existing code,
> although the fix
> > > trivial. But it does increase safety, so is worth doing.
> Where does
> > > leave std::auto_ptr<>? Odd man out, as usual, I guess.
> > Just missing a simple trick that nobody thought to apply.
> Maybe we could
> > propose this as an upgrade in the next version of C++.
> Tricks don't go in the standard. :-) You need "instantiating
> auto_ptr<T>::~auto_ptr, where T is an incomplete type other
> than void, is
> ill-formed, no diagnostic required." Can this pass as a DR?
> No, don't look
> at me.
I think it's already in there, actually, or close enough: [188.8.131.52/2] (as I
read it) would make instantiating std::auto_ptr with an incomplete type
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk