Re: [boost] Re: auto_ptr/move issue

From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-03 14:01:01

On Monday, February 3, 2003, at 12:53  PM, David B. Held wrote:

> So, apologies to Howard if it
> looked like I was calling him a copycat.  That was not my intent in the
> least.

No, I did not read your question that way.  No apologies necessary at 
all.

> "I plan to implement Mojo in SmartPtr.  Does it follow the protocol
> you propose, or should I consider additional factors not yet
> discussed?"

I just reread Andrei's Mojo article, at least the part under 
"Application: auto_ptr's Cousin and Mojoed Containers".  It looks to me 
(after a very superficial read) like move_ptr and mojo_ptr are 
essentially expressing the same idea.

> In fact, my understanding is that Howard's move_ptr *is* more
> similar to mojo_ptr than auto_ptr, because auto_ptr has
> auto_ptr(auto_ptr&), which is exactly the thing Howard is
> crusading against.

I'm not sure that the evolutionary taxonomy of this is worth too many 
more electrons.

But I'm happy to have a cool new signature! :-)

-Howard

        *******************************************************
        *                                                     *
        *      Do not move from an lvalue with copy syntax.   *
        *                                                     *
        *******************************************************