2009/2/24 Steven Watanabe
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
Which other smart pointer? Scoped_* is really simple and the optimized code is the same as a naked pointer, which is what some people need. For me, scoped_* is exactly what I need: - RAII - tantamount to a simple pointer - possible to swap pointers Matthieu -- Information System Engineer, Ph.D. Website: http://matthieu-brucher.developpez.com/ Blogs: http://matt.eifelle.com and http://blog.developpez.com/?blog=92 LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthieubrucher