|
|
Boost : |
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-29 07:51:31
From: "David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]>
> "Greg Colvin" <Gregory.Colvin_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:5.2.0.9.2.20030128104737.027bcea8_at_rgmgitmail.oraclecorp.com...
> > At 10:08 AM 1/28/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> > >[...]
> > >I think what Peter refers to is that C++ might change to make
> > >move semantics easier to implement. That would render the effort
> > >unnecessary.
>
> Only if we don't want smart_ptr for another year or two, or whenever
> compiler vendors start shipping compilers that implement the new move
> syntax, and people start using them in force.
I don't see why. You'll have a C++98 smart_ptr. It won't be able to emulate
auto_ptr<>, that's all.
If your user community tells you that auto_ptr emulation is important for
them, you'll try to add it. If other features are more important to your
users, you'll work on those instead. Like extend the COM policy to use
QueryInterface on conversions, for example. Or adding deep const.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk