From: Mike Tegtmeyer (tegtmeye_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-11-02 19:18:51
Ah! That was news to me. I have the rationale that I needed. Thanks.
On Sat, 3 Nov 2007, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Mike Tegtmeyer:
>> The counter argument that I hear from not-new folks however is that it
>> takes some work to not leak the resource during an exception in the
>> shared_ptr construction. Therefore, the ugliness to maintain integrity
>> diminishes it's usefulness. ie
>> FILE *in = fopen(...);
>> return/throw badness;
>> //may throw here, 'in' is lost
>> shared_ptr<FILE> fin(in,fclose);
> The answer here is much, much easier. 'in' will not be lost. shared_ptr does
> invoke the deleter when the constructor throws.
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost