Boost logo

Boost :

From: Larry Evans (cppljevans_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-29 14:30:27

On 03/29/2006 06:44 AM, Paul Mensonides wrote:
>>[mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Larry Evans
>>Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your definition of "safe"?
> One way that it is safer is in sequence points, e.g.
> f( shared_ptr<X>(new X(1, 2, 3)), shared_ptr<Y>(new Y(1, 2, 3)) );
> f( make_shared_ptr<X>(1, 2, 3), make_shared_ptr<Y>(1, 2, 3) );
> The latter is safe, whereas the former is not.

THanks, thar clears things up. I guess I should have remembered
that post that started all this from Vaclav with subject:

   [shared_ptr] Best Practices - new_shared_ptr

and that cited:

The phrase "exeption safe" would have helped my memory. I guess
exception safety is why you use "sequence points" above, although
I'm not very exception safe aware; so, I could be wrong. Maybe I
should read more carefully Sutter's _Exceptional C++_ ?

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at