Subject: Re: [boost] temp_ptr<> - preventing use as a member
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-14 11:07:03
On 11/13/2011 04:41 PM, Gottlob Frege wrote:
> I'm trying to see if I can replace all raw pointers with suitable
> smart pointers that clearly describe the pointer's lifetime, sharing,
> For example, a pointer passed into a function, that is only valid for
> the lifetime of the function call. A temp_ptr or callstack_ptr or ...
> some better name.
This sounds a lot like scoped_ptr.
> So this pointer would need a copy constructor so it can be passed
> along into a function (I don't think requiring a ref to the pointer
> would be good; I'd rather pass by value).
I don't think this is a good idea. You probably
don't want the copy constructor to copy the
pointee, which means that the destructor doesn't
necessarily call delete...