Re: [Boost-users] scoped_ptr::release (again)

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] scoped_ptr::release (again)
From: Steven Watanabe (watanabesj_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-24 12:19:34

AMDG

Nat Goodspeed wrote:
> Christopher Jefferson wrote:
>
>> I'd vote for keeping scoped_ptr as simple as possible, even removing 
>> that swap, and directing people who want more power to unique_ptr.
>
> I'd like to keep swap(). If the coder wants to disable it, wouldn't 
> 'const scoped_ptr' suffice?
>
> If I have a class that supports assignment, and my class uses 
> scoped_ptr to manage some resource, Herb Sutter's exception-safe 
> assignment operator still applies:
>
> 1. Construct a new stack scoped_ptr with the incoming resource. An 
> exception here leaves *this unmolested.
> 2. Swap the member scoped_ptr with the new scoped_ptr. (swap() is 
> guaranteed not to throw.)
> 3. Leaving the assignment-operator method body destroys the temp stack 
> scoped_ptr, releasing the member scoped_ptr's previous data.

The question is not whether swap is useful, but whether it should
be part of scoped_ptr rather than another smart pointer.

In Christ,
Steven Watanabe