Date: 2003-10-01 14:07:16
On 10/01/2003 11:33 AM, Douglas Paul Gregor wrote:
> On Wed, 1 Oct 2003 cppljevans_at_[hidden] wrote:
>>Why couldn't the shifted_ptr(T*) be replaced with
>>shifted_ptr(make_shifted_ptr<T>&), where make_shifted_ptr<T> is
>>simply derived from auto_ptr but has no make_shifted_ptr(T*) CTOR?
> Heck, with the types of syntax we're discussing, where we move the actual
> memory allocation into the library, shifted_ptr could become an
> implementation detail of shared_ptr. We'd get the efficiency benefits of
> shifted_ptr without the safety problems.
Sounds good to me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk