From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-05 06:32:59
"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > And I would want to take a smart pointer with shared
> > semantics, because that says foo() isn't responsible for cleaning
> > it up if something happens (or even if nothing happens).
> ok. If this kind of documentation is important, then I guess one could
> achieve the same (though differently) by having a coding guide-line
> that says naked pointers means no ownership and auto_ptr means
> that foo takes ownership.
But you are still missing shared ownership. Sometimes, you want to
know that p is safe, but you don't have to worry about it. That's why
you specify a shared pointer.
> So how do you say foo() is responsible for clean up?
You already said it: void foo(auto_ptr<T> p). ;)
> > Don't you use smart pointers that way?
> I've never done it like that.
It's never too late to start. ;)
--- Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 12/26/2003
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk