Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-16 20:28:23

Joe Gottman wrote:

> No, but I would expect foo.get_allocator() to return some valid
> allocator and not cause a segmentation fault. In general, I don't
> want functions that previously were always safe to be unsafe after a
> move.

To get back to shared_ptr, given p and q of type shared_ptr, would you be
extremely disappointed if after:

    p = move( q );

q holds the old value of p instead of being empty?

(Note that p may have had a value that you could consider "unsafe" in the
context of the valid values of q.)

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