[boost] Re: [boost] Re: [boost] Re: [boost] Curaçao: reaction to smart pointer

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-01 05:50:24

From: "Howard Hinnant" <hinnant_at_[hidden]>
> Policies or not, open issues in my mind are:
>
> 1.  template typedef's are a probable future language feature.  Assuming
> we have that, how does that change the picture?

Not in any significant ways, I'd say.

> 2.  How will the introduction of move semantics affect smart pointers?

Not in any significant ways. :-)

> I can easily see a use for a smart pointer with no copy semantics, but
> move semantics.

That would be 'auto_ptr', I guess.

> 3.  Should we be looking at smart object holders, and pointers are just
> a special case?  Or would this turn into a kitchen sink class with way
> too big of an interface?

I believe that it will. The appropriate interface for a resource varies
wildly. But this is just my opinion.