Re: [boost] Re: Boostifying Loki::SmartPtr

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-28 07:48:55

At 06:18 PM 4/19/02 -0700, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 >> 4. destructive_copy
 >> typedef typename Select<OP::destructive_copy, smart_ptr, const
 >> smart_ptr>::Result
 >> copy_arg;
 >> Does not seems reasonable. What will I do with auto_ptr that expect
 >> non-const argument for assingment and copy construction? That mean it
 >will
 >> be mutable in any class that contain it. I better do once const_cast. 
So
 >> hole logic about destructive_copy should be removed. So no need t 
oworry
 >> about Select facility.
 >
 >This constructor was carefully designed (read: hacked for many nights) to
 >fully emulate the std::auto_ptr design (read: amazingly intelligent 
hack).
 >I suggest we keep it so that smart_ptr remains a borg that swallows all
 >other pointers, auto_ptr included :o).

That's a reasonable objective, but only if it can be done without seriously 
distorting the rest of the design.

--Beman