Howard Hinnant wrote:
On Feb 20, 2009, at 1:27 PM, Yang Zhang wrote:
From http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_36_0/libs/smart_ptr/scoped_ptr.htm:
"If scoped_ptr had a release() member, it would become possible to transfer ownership of the held pointer, weakening its role as a way of limiting resource lifetime to a given context. Use std::auto_ptr where transfer of ownership is required. (supplied by Dave Abrahams)"
But there already is a way to escape the scope, via swap().
Would it make more sense to just provide release() and have users specify const if they want? (const scoped_ptr/scoped_array would effectively disallow swapping/releasing.)
<opinion> http://home.roadrunner.com/~hinnant/unique_ptr03.html
(search for "scoped_ptr") </opinion>
Nice. Thanks for the pointer (pun intended). I take it boost does not have unique_ptr, correct? I checked in Boost.TR1 and found nothing. I did find boost::interprocess::unique_pointer, but that appears to be different. I did some digging, and I did find mention of this file on the gcc mailing lists - I take it this implementation is being included in GNU libstdc++? Lastly, I didn't see any rvalue references in this file. I was under the impression that the implementation of unique_ptr leverages rvalue references. Is this why there are const_casts present in the code? -- Yang Zhang http://www.mit.edu/~y_z/