[boost] Re: Re: SmartPtr (Loki) - auto_ptr/move c'tor issue

From: Andrei Alexandrescu (andrewalex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-28 12:33:17

"David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:b16e3r$u0n$1_at_main.gmane.org...
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > It depends on what your design goals are. If you want to create the
> > One True Smart Pointer Design, then yes, auto_ptr<> emulation is a
> > must.
>
> I think this is a good goal. ;>

I've shown with facts that it's less of an unattainable goal than it might
seen.

> > > 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?
> >
> > Interesting question. Do you have an example?
>
> You would call me on that, wouldn't you?  Ok, I can't think of a
> resource that would *require* move semantics (which is why I didn't
> mention one in the first place, but I hoped maybe someone more
> imaginative than I would pipe up with an example ;).

I've needed that for mutex types, for instance.

Andrei