Re: [boost] [interprocess] default constructors

Subject: Re: [boost] [interprocess] default constructors
From: Jan Stetka (janpstetka_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-29 18:24:53

Ion Gaztañaga wrote:
> Jan Stetka wrote:
>> Hi,
>>
>> Is there any reason why named_mutex and managed_shared_memory don't 
>> have a default constructor?
> 
> Because in the review the two step construction (default ctor + open()) 
> was considered harmful. I guess now it would be useful in the presence 
> of move semantics. Is that your intended use case?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Ion
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: 
> http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> 
I'm don't known what "move semantics" are, my motive is so I can have 
named_mutex and managed_shared_memory in the global scope without having 
to instantiate as pointers.