From: Sohail Somani (s.somani_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-15 11:54:56
What is expected to happen here:
} // t1 destructor called, t destructor called?
If t gets its destructor called, then it must obviously be in some self-consistent state. For shared_ptr I think this would mean that upon destruction, it deletes 0.
If the move constructor proposal doesn't say anything about being in a minimally destructible state after being moved, I think it should. Unless of course the destructor for t doesn't get called (which would imply some runtime checks - always).
From: boost-bounces_at_[hidden] on behalf of Howard Hinnant
Sent: Sat 4/14/2007 4:12 PM
Subject: Re: [boost] [shared_ptr] dangerous implementation ofmove constructor
Fwiw Peter asked me to look at this. Imho after a move from an
object it should be in a self-consistent state. All internal
invariants should hold. This answer is purposefully vague, and could
be used to support either outcome.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk