[boost] Re: [boost.move] move_ptr

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
>> use?
>
> Fwiw, there's a copyright-free move_ptr at:
>
> http://home.twcny.rr.com/hinnant/Utilities/move_ptr
>
> 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,
> ironically.

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.

single_ptr?

> 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