Subject: Re: [boost] make_shared_array
From: Nathan Crookston (nathan.crookston_at_[hidden])
Date: 2012-11-02 11:48:59
On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 9:36 AM, Glen Fernandes <glen.fernandes_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> To me, intuitively (but also probably without the necessary historical
> context on shared_ptr design) I would think it was acceptable for us
> to work on, but then I wonder why is C++11's std::shared_ptr not
> already like this?
Howard Hinnant mentioned that it was mostly because no proposal was
made, and apparently experimented with such a thing himself (he
maintains libc++). I'm not on the standards committee's reflectors,
but there was apparently lively discussion on shared_ptr<T> pointer
> Nate, I agree that it makes sense for any construction of one from the
> other to be explicit.
Yes -- emphasizing more than just calling an explicit constructor.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk