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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk