Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] std::auto_ptr in public interfaces
From: Daniela Engert (dani_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-05-20 15:45:40

Am 20.05.2017 um 17:28 schrieb Andrey Semashev via Boost:
> ...
> Personally, I would prefer libraries to switch to boost::unique_ptr and
> leave std::auto_ptr interfaces available (but deprecated) for backward
> compatibility.

But, if you break the interface and people's code by replacing
std::auto_ptr by boost::unique_ptr (is there such a thing in the first
place, I couldn't find one in Boost.Smart_ptr?), why not just going
straight to std::unique_ptr? Users affected by this problem definitely
have std::unique_ptr available and certainly don't need a non-standard
compatibility solution. What does a boost:unique_ptr solution buy you?


PGP/GPG: 2CCB 3ECB 0954 5CD3 B0DB 6AA0 BA03 56A1 2C4638C5

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