From: Philippe A. Bouchard (philippe_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-21 17:02:25
"Gregory Colvin" <gregory.colvin_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >> - I have found an acceptable keyword to replace the "new" paradox:
> > Paradox?
Exactly, the "new" paradigm.
> > The antonym of "record" is "erase".
"erase" is a synonym to "delete" ;)
> > Your function should have a name which indicates that it's going to
> > make a shifted_ptr and not something else. Surely we'll want to do
> > the same thing with auto_ptr some day.
Ok, I wasn't awared. It's just that I liked the idea of having an operator
returning an auto_ptr instead of a raw pointer and this is what record<> was
> > I don't think so. The explicit constructor means you must write:
> > shared_ptr<int> p(new int(9));
> >> shifted_ptr<int> q = record<int>(9);
Yes my apologies for the syntax. I wanted to point out the allocations
> >> p(q); // Ok
> >> q(p); // You decide whether it is worth the complexity of its
> >> implementation
> >> Please note that I didn't wanted to use "make" or "create" because
> >> those are
> >> used too much frequently as for the "new" paradox.
> > ``as for the "new" paradox''
> > makes no sense to me either. Would you mind rephrasing?
Like Gregory was mentionning, "paradigm" makes more sense. I was referring
to "paradox" because placement new is in fact an explicit constructor but
act as an allocator.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk