|
|
Boost : |
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-17 10:28:47
From: "David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]>
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:007a01c1fd8b$ef7b20f0$1d00a8c0_at_pdimov2...
> > [...] Now one can unleash the "smart pointer theory" on the problem. ;-)
>
> Heh, heh...the "smart pointer theory"...now I feel like we're doing
physics.
> ;)
>
> > [...] It isn't a move semantics showcase IMHO [...]
>
> After hearing Bill's opinion of shared locks, do you think that move
> semantics are more appropriate, or that there is a better alternative?
Difficult to say. I didn't want to imply that shared locks are better than
move locks, I just demonstrated how a smart pointer (framework), even one so
limited as shared_ptr, can be used to create locks.
If move locks are, indeed, the way to go, this would be a strong argument in
favor of a smart_ptr framework that supports pointers with move semantics.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk