From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-18 06:02:02
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaks_at_[hidden]>
> > Bjorn wrote:
> > It's bad because it introduces a dependency, without adding significant
> Most of us don't change <memory> on a regular basis. So why is the
> problematic? What do you lose from it? I would like to have this, but
for me, th
> would be syntactic sugar, since I can accomplish the same thing with
> before passing it to the constructor.
That's not actually equivalent if you are passing multiple arguments. In
case of an exception, the unmanaged memory may leak.
I support the change to scoped_ptr.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk