Re: [boost] auto_sequence (was auto_vector)

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-25 14:11:07

From: "Mark Rodgers" <mark.rodgers_at_[hidden]>
> Also, the dangling pointer is no problem if it is not used,
> whereas the mere existence of a dangling shared pointer prevents a
> destructor being called when it should be.  That might be important.
>
> To answer Peter's original question in another way, the difference is
> pretty much the same as the difference between auto_ptr and shared_ptr.
> Peter, are you suggesting that people should only ever use shared_ptr
> and *never* auto_ptr?

The answer to this question may well be "yes" but this is not what I had in
mind. I simply asked for a rationale, that's all.