Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [move][unique_ptr] c++14 unique_ptr comes to town
From: Peter Dimov (lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2014-08-26 12:54:55

Adam Wulkiewicz wrote:

> Without checking out the code...

You should. It's not much.

> IMHO more reasonable approach would be to take more complete
> implementation and then port some nice solutions from the other one but of
> course I may be missing something.

Ion's implementation is more complete in that it supports C++03 and
optimizes out empty deleters. Mine is "more complete" in that it supports
unique_ptr<T[N]> with proper shared_ptr-style conversions and is "better" in
that it does all that with a single template, without triplication. I've
also decided to make unique_ptr<T>( new U ) and unique_ptr<T>(
unique_ptr<U>() ) only compile when U* can be deleted properly via T*, that
is, when they share the same cv-less type or when T has a virtual

> I'm guessing that after adding the move emulation for C++98,
> optimizations, workarounds, etc. the code would look different.

It certainly will look different. I'm still undecided on whether it'd be
better to maintain two separate implementations, one C++11 and one C++03, or
to #ifdef everything in a single file. Both approaches have their pros and
cons. More head-scratching is required.

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