Subject: Re: [boost] [move][unique_ptr] c++14 unique_ptr comes to town
From: Vicente J. Botet Escriba (vicente.botet_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-08-25 17:57:06
Le 25/08/14 20:16, Glen Fernandes a Ã©crit :
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2014 at 3:36 AM, Ion GaztaÃ±aga wrote:
>> Would you agree making boost::movelib::unique_ptr boost::unique_ptr? I can
>> think about some gradual steps.
> I like the idea of a boost::unique_ptr in Boost.SmartPtr, but my
> initial desire was for it to start as a perfect implementation of the
> std::unique_ptr specification in the standard, followed by
> modifications that reconcile it with any interface changes proposed in
> boost::shared_ptr. I also assumed compiler support for the necessary
> C++11 language features to support that implementation: i.e. while I
> see value in supporting C++03 via Boost.Move, I don't know if there is
> such a desire for a boost::unique_ptr C++03 emulation.
I need a portable implementation in order to make the libraries I
maintain portable. Currently I'm using boost::interprocess::unique_ptr
(which uses Boost.Move, but is not completely compatible to the C++11
specification), but I would prefer a portable implementation in SmartPtr
> It looks like Peter has already started on an implementation, and I
> like the approach he took. If he has the time, and the inclination, I
> would like to have him drive that to completion to as the
> Boost.SmartPtr unique_ptr implementation. What would be nicer still,
> is if Boost.Move could then leverage that implementation to provide a
> C++03 emulation in boost::movelib or boost::moveable etc. but that
> might be a taller order.
While I'm not against for C++11 only libraries, I think that this one
must be provided for C++98 compilers.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk