Re: [boost] Smart Pointer new/Forwarding Problem Solved (by Force)

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-29 19:16:41

David Abrahams wrote:
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> David Abrahams wrote:
>>> David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:
>>>
>>>> Unfortunately for this particular facility, the converting
>>>> constructor is explicit, so you can't do
>>>>
>>>>    f(new_<T>(a, b, c))
>>>>
>>>> if f takes a shared_ptr<T>.
>>>
>>> I just realized we could probably fix this by removing an "explicit"
>>> from the ctor that accepts an rvalue auto_ptr.  What about that,
>>> Peter?  This seems like a poster child for rvalue distinction!
>>
>> Done.
>
> Cool!  Just in case it wasn't obvious: we should do this across all
> the smart pointers.  It looks like scoped_ptr could use the same
> treatment, for example.

scoped_ptr already takes its auto_ptr argument by value, so it doesn't need 
a separate rvalue overload. There should be no need to make the constructor 
implicit since a scoped_ptr cannot be used as a function argument because of 
its noncopyability.