From: Darin Adler (darin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-18 23:37:33
on 10/18/01 7:08 PM, David Abrahams at david.abrahams_at_[hidden] wrote:
> IMO it's not even a question of self-assignment. I would prefer to detect
> calls to "reset" on a pointer that is already managed by another smart
> pointer whenever possible, by asserting.
I agree that's highly desirable. But it seems to point in a different
direction from the existing feature.
The feature in reset() now gives predictable behavior when doing a reset to
the same pointer twice. It doesn't prohibit it. I just wanted to point out
that Peter's revision of smart_ptr removes this feature.
Changing the existing check to an assert, simple or sophisticated, that
makes this illegal would be OK for me, but maybe not for others.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk