From: Thomas Witt (witt_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-09 14:38:36
On Monday 09 September 2002 19:37, Peter Dimov wrote:
> From: "Thomas Witt" <witt_at_[hidden]>
> Another indication that you can't beat copy+swap correctness-wise.
That's exactly what I thought as I discovered the problem. BTW there is
another lesson I've learned about intrusive ptrs. Creating the A object in
B's ctor like this:
is a very bad idea.
> OK, I've
> fixed scoped_ptr::reset (although I've some trouble communicating with the
> CVS server so the changes aren't committed yet.)
> The self-reset "feature"
> is still there; should we remove it as well for 1.29 or can this wait?
I am not religous about this one. Actually I think Beman has a point. reset()
should be allowed if ptr == 0. What about
BOOST_ASSERT( !ptr || ptr != p);
What did I miss this time?
-- Dipl.-Ing. Thomas Witt Institut fuer Verkehrswesen, Eisenbahnbau und -betrieb, Universitaet Hannover voice: +49(0) 511 762 - 4273, fax: +49(0) 511 762-3001 http://www.ive.uni-hannover.de
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk