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
>> Does not seems reasonable. What will I do with auto_ptr that expect
>> non-const argument for assingment and copy construction? That mean it
>> be mutable in any class that contain it. I better do once const_cast.
>> hole logic about destructive_copy should be removed. So no need t
>> about Select facility.
>This constructor was carefully designed (read: hacked for many nights) to
>fully emulate the std::auto_ptr design (read: amazingly intelligent
>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.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk