Re: [boost] Re: auto_array_ptr

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 
> is:
> 
> 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[3]);
> 
> 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.
> 
> -Howard
> 
> To unsubscribe, send email to: <mailto:boost-unsubscribe_at_[hidden]>
>  
> 
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ 
> 
> 
>