Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Boost and auto_ptr (was Boost 1.60.0 beta 1...)
From: Vladimir Batov (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-11-10 21:17:02

On 11/11/2015 12:17 PM, Edward Diener wrote:
> On 11/10/2015 6:09 PM, Vladimir Batov wrote:
>> On 11/11/2015 03:03 AM, Zach Laine wrote:
>>> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 8:47 AM, Artyom Beilis <artyomtnk_at_[hidden]>
>>> wrote:
>>>> I don't see ANY reason whatsoever to break existing code unless the
>>>> use of some code opens some critical security bugs like gets() for
>>>> example.
>>>> ...
>>>> I think this proposal is totally disconnected from real world.
>>>> ...
>>> ...
>>> I agree with the author of that paper that the use of auto_ptr *is*
>>> broken
>>> in the general case, and so it should be deprecated and removed.
>> Deprecating and removing are not quite the same with very different
>> outcomes to the end-user. No matter how much one likes C++11 and how
>> much auto_prt is "broken" it appears outright irresponsible removing
>> such an important and well-entrenched component with huge impact onto
>> the end-user code base. The concern expressed by Artyom is
>> well-justified. There cannot be ifs and buts about it.
> I believe one is allowed to say that Y does everything that X does and
> is better and therefore X will be removed at some time in the future.
> If one cannot say that then computer programming will never advance to
> the use of better programming idioms. I don't believe that one must
> carry the baggage of X forever because some programmers want to use X
> in perpetuity.
> This is a general reflection and is not a specific argument for
> std::unique_ptr versus std::auto_ptr. However technically
> std::unique_ptr appears to me to be a superior programming idiom than
> std::auto_ptr and while I am not going to argue over a date in which
> std::auto_ptr should no longer be part of the C++ standard library, it
> seems inevitable to me that at some time in the future it would be
> removed from the C++ standard library.

Edward, I was not implying that "one is disallowed to say..." or that
"std::unique_ptr is inferior...". I apologize if I inadvertently created
that impression.

My concern was about the ease "deprecated and removed" appear together.
For example, gets() was deprecated in C99. Removed in the C2011
standard. Still available in GCC implementation. Applying the
deprecated-to-removed transition in just a few years seems hasty. That
impression comes from mentioned
indicating that the second "major version" after VS2015 (2019?) auto_ptr
won't be available. If I understood it correctly, I found it
concerning... but I feel common sense will prevail. :-)

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