"Alberto Barbati" <abarbati@iaanus.com> wrote in message news:c2hhhi$lgs$1@sea.gmane.org...
Thorsten Ottosen wrote: [snip]
The cases where a call to a destructor is actually important beacuse it does some non-trivial work, one really need to ensure not even temporary objects of the type exists. That's one of the capabilities my smart containers will allow, ie, "overwriting" really means destructing and replacing.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here. I started my sentence with "For primitive types"...
yeah, I could have said it better :-) What I meant was that copy-behavior is ususally incompatible with non-trivial destructors. What I mean by non-trivial destructors is that eg. a file is closed or a connection is closed. In those cases making temporaries and copies is not good: you want more explicit control over when the destructor is called. (hence you need a container of heap-allocated objects and not something like vector<Socket> ) For most value-like objects we have the opposite situation and we don't mind if an object is overwritten by assignment of if destructors are called. br Thorsten