From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-29 22:17:10
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> 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.
Duh. Thanks for setting me straight.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting 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