
20 Feb
2009
20 Feb
'09
6:27 p.m.
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.) -- Yang Zhang http://www.mit.edu/~y_z/