From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-26 19:31:07
On Aug 26, 2004, at 7:03 PM, Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> I just wanted to hear if anybody had already made a move_ptr I could
Fwiw, there's a copyright-free move_ptr at:
But I don't recommend it. I really like Dave's move implementation
better, though it is less portable with current compilers (including
Metrowerks). I also think move_ptr should carry a destructor policy in
template<class T, class D = typename detail::default_delete<T>::type>
And I think it should be specialized on T for arrays:
template<class T, class D> class move_ptr<T, D>;
And finally, I really am not happy with the name move_ptr, ironically.
I was just this morning trying to think of a better name.
How about owned_ptr?
I was trying to contrast it with shared_ptr: With shared_ptr, many
instances share ownership of a pointer. With move/owned_ptr, unique
ownership is always assured. Bringing up another possibility:
unique_ptr. I'm trying to stress the characteristic of sole ownership
vs shared ownership, rather than the fact the pointer is movable. In
the future, many types will be movable (even shared_ptr). So move_ptr
is a really lousy name.
I spent way too much time with the thesaurus this morning. ;-)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk