Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [shared_array] Why not in C++11 ?
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-07-07 16:47:05

Sid Sacek wrote:
> Peter Dimov wrote:
> > As others already said, we only proposed shared_ptr and weak_ptr for TR1
> > (and then C++11).
> >
> > A related question is why shared_ptr<T[]> is not in C++14, and the
> > answer here is that I proposed it just a bit too late for it to > be
> > considered.
> >
> >
> So then what? C++17 ?
> I could be wrong, but it seems too trivial of a modification to push off
> into a future C++.

There is a cool-off period while C++14 is being finalized, in which no
changes are accepted. That's ISO procedure. Once C++14 becomes an official
standard, it'd become possible for N3640 to be discussed and, hopefully,
accepted; it would then be up to individual compiler vendors to provide an
implementation. There'd be no need to actually wait for C++17 for that, but
officially, yes, C++17 will be the standard in which the changes will be
published (if accepted).

The switch to a three-year cycle caught some of us off guard. I should have
proposed shared_ptr<T[]> earlier, but I didn't, so that's where we stand
now. Sorry. :-)

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