From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-04-05 16:05:35
From: Howard Hinnant <hinnant_at_[hidden]>
> On Thursday, April 5, 2001, at 03:52 PM, Gary Powell wrote:
> > I'd be glad to have a "new and improved" auto_ptr but we should give
> > it a
> > new name. Meantime I'm just trying for a auto_array_ptr. And since that
> > doesn't exist in std, I'm open to any and all "improvements"
> At the risk of getting repetitive, my favorite name for auto_array_ptr
> template<class X>
> class auto_ptr<X>
My favorite too.
> But I imagine that people using a compiler that doesn't support partial
> specialization wouldn't be happy with that. Nevertheless, if there is
> interest, I would be happy to help modify the boost::auto_ptr to do
> this. For those of you who may have missed my previous posts on this
> subject below is a short description...
> > In that light, are you suggesting that auto_array_ptr not use
> > auto_ptr_ref?
> I haven't looked at the details of auto_array_ptr, but based on my
> experience with this type of class I would think that auto_array_ptr
> still needs auto_ptr_ref. But the template parameter of auto_ptr_ref
> must be constrained to be the same as the template parameter of
> auto_ptr. Thus there is no need for the member template methods in
> auto_ptr to be member templates; they should be ordinary member
> methods. Since there are already ordinary member methods with the
> appropriate signature, the member template methods can simply be removed.
> On auto_ptr<X>:
> A newbie once asked on comp.lang.c++ if the following would work:
> auto_ptr<char> ap(new char);
> Obviously it doesn't, it should cause a compile time error. But I
> thought it might be neat if it did work. After all, if this is how a
> newbie would expect it to work, then that is a fair argument for
> intuitiveness. It is not too difficult to create a partial
> specialization of auto_ptr on X that acts like auto_array_ptr. In
> fact, it is really nothing more than renaming auto_array_ptr<X> to
> auto_ptr<X>. Any arguments for or against auto_ptr<X> vs
> auto_array_ptr should focus on the merits of the name of the class. I
> believe that the functionality is the same either way.
> To unsubscribe, send email to: <mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk