Boost logo

Boost :

From: Phil Nash (phil.nash.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-30 06:28:44

I just dug this up from the archives.

On 3/9/06, Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve wrote:
> > --- Dan Day <coolmandan_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >
> >> On 3/8/06, Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve <rwgk_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> >>
> >>> Are there arguments for not adding release()?
> >>
> >> Check the FAQ on the scoped_ptr documentation.
> >
> > Policing arguments ("you shouldn't to this") are OK only if there is
> > an alternative. As I wrote before, there is no auto_array, therefore
> > the FAQ is just frustrating.
> I'm willing to add scoped_array::release if nobody objects and if you
> contribute a test. But keep in mind that 1.34 is closed for new features.

Peter, did you ever add release to scoped_array? Did you get any
objections (I did find, from scanning archives) that there were some
detractors when this has come up before. But this seemed to mostly
boil down to consistency - with some talking about having auto_array.
The thread I cite here was about auto_array, and I think the OP
actually wanted auto_ptr-like move semantics - but in many cases its
just the release that is wanted.
If there is a version of auto_array, or unique_ptr, or something -
that will let me manage a raw array, with the ability to release
ownership - that is already in Boost (or will be in the next version)
then I'd be happy. Otherwise what are the chances of reopening the
scoped_array::release() debate?

Best regards,


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