Re: [boost] ptr vs. auto_ptr vs. shared_ptr

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-18 09:44:41

From: "Neal D. Becker" <nbecker_at_[hidden]>
>
> The initialization of plain ptr with "0" is OK, and so is auto_ptr,
> but not shared_ptr.  Why?

The shared_ptr constructor taking a pointer is a template, and doesn't
accept the literal 0. Use the default constructor for now.

> Is this a defect?

Probably not a defect, but an inconvenience nevertheless. I don't see any
downsides at the moment so I'll probably enable construction from 0 after
the release when I work out the details.