Yang Zhang skrev:
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.)
FWIW, I think scoped_ptr/scoped_array should have a release() member. The defining aspects of std::auto_ptr is its ability to transfer ownership transparently, not that it has a release member. Especially when working with legacy code, release() is necessary. Therefore it is a great pity that the member is not provided. In my view this categorises as over-encapsulation. best regards Thorsten