From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-26 20:47:27
Howard Hinnant <hinnant_at_[hidden]> writes:
> 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 it's type:
My move implementation is more portable now. But for something that's
movable but not copiable --- that's easier. Use Daniel's version,
which is very portable.
> And finally, I really am not happy with the name move_ptr,
Why not? Oh, below.
> I was just this morning trying to think of a better name.
> How about owned_ptr?
How is that different from auto_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. ;-)
I hope you two are good friends, now.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk