On 23 Feb 2009, at 21:39, Richard Hadsell wrote:
WFM...
void foo(scoped_array<int> &b) { scoped_array<int> a(new int[5]); swap(a,b); // escape }
Hm.. I agree with you that having swap to escape scoping but not having release looks inconsequent. In my opinion there should be no swap either. I use swap to do things like reallocate an array to a new size. I also use it to modify a linked list that uses scoped_ptr for its
Alexander wrote: links.
swap() still guarantees that some code will delete the object or array at some point. I think leaks are impossible.
Would release() do that? I'm unfamiliar with its function. If it means that the code that released the pointer is now responsible for deleting it, I don't want it. It will just mean that I have to examine all the code to look for releases and then see whether I can prove that code is guaranteed to delete it.
The best thing about scoped_ptr and _array is that they are almost foolproof. The only ways that I can think of to mess one up are (a) to use the wrong one for the type of allocation (object or array) and (b) to get() its pointer and then delete it.
That's my opinion as a long-time user.
Could I suggest that if you want something like a scoped_ptr which you can return from functions, and release, then you probably want the slightly more powerful, but still very safe, unique_ptr? 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. Chris