From: Philippe A. Bouchard (philippeb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-01 00:08:19
David Abrahams wrote:
> So, despite that you said "no", the answer is "yes, it still exposes
> an unmanaged raw pointer" AFAICT.
> There are other reasons not to do that, for example exception safety.
The placement operator new should be revised in the standards eventually.
Placement operator new should also return a some information about the
operator from which it was allocated from. As I understand it is the same
problem with shared_ptr.
Would you prefer:
- new1<T> & new2<T> (for shared_ptr objects & shifted_ptr objects) or;
- make_shared_ptr<T> & make_shifted_ptr<T>.
The latest is obviously more descriptive.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk