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

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-28 19:21:16

At 01:42 PM 1/28/2003, David B. Held wrote:

 >"Greg Colvin" <Gregory.Colvin_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
 >news:5.2.0.9.2.20030128104737.027bcea8_at_rgmgitmail.oraclecorp.com...

 >> Also, auto_ptr is an ugly hack that needn't be replicated.
 >
 >Disavowing your child? ;)

Historical note: auto_ptr<> was one of the few (maybe only) times when the 
C++ committee as a whole overrode the recommendation of the Library Working 
Group.

Greg and other people in the LWG didn't like auto_ptr<>, preferring what is 
now called shared_ptr<>. But we were good soldiers, and accepted the 
committee's decision. That meant we had to develop auto_ptr<>, even though 
we didn't like it. A lot of us still think it is a minor smart pointer, and 
has no place in the standard, except perhaps as an adjunct to more 
important smart pointers such as shared_ptr<> and eventually smart_ptr<>.

Greg's 1994 proposal, which was the LWG's choice, is still available at 
http://std.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/1994/N0555.pdf What it calls 
auto_ptr is now what we call scoped_ptr.  Likewise, counted_ptr -> 
shared_ptr.

--Beman