|
|
Boost : |
From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-28 11:14:05
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:009f01c2c6d7$91024ab0$1d00a8c0_at_pdimov2...
> [...]
> The first question, of course, is: do you really need SmartPtr<...> to
> support move semantics (in current C++)?
Why wouldn't you want that? At the very least, it seems like a glaring
omission to create a smart pointer framework that can't even emulate
auto_ptr<>. Beyond that, it seems that there are resources that would
benefit from or outright require move semantics to work properly, and
why wouldn't you want to let SmartPtr<> manage those?
Dave
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk