Re: [boost] auto_vector - vector with auto_ptr semantics

From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-04 21:15:00

On Monday, February 4, 2002, at 08:05  PM, Greg Colvin wrote:

>>  I imagine you would be
>> one of the first to agree that giving auto_ptr move semantics was not
>> easy, or at least not straight forward! :-)
>
> It was the most evil and ugly thing I was ever forced to do. ;->

</somewhat off topic>

But I feel moved to speak.

I honestly feel that auto_ptr is a pioneer.  The mother of smart 
pointers if you will.  I have great admiration for the work that Greg 
and Bill Gibbons did on auto_ptr, and under tremendous pressure I'm 
sure.  I know that there were smart pointers before auto_ptr.  But 
auto_ptr managed to satisfy the entire standards committee in 1997.  And 
as I have gradually come to believe just over the past year, I think 
auto_ptr is the forerunner of generalized  move semantics.  There is 
great parallel between auto_ptr_ref and John's move_t I spoke of 
earlier.  Greg and Bill were designing working move semantics in '97 and 
I'm still struggling with this issue 5 years later.

My hat is off to Greg and Bill.  A job well done!  I can not imagine 
trying to design move semantics today without auto_ptr to stand on.

-Howard