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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk