Yes, you are right. Thanks for your quick response. I made a quick test, and it compiles.
I was cheated by the compiler response, the fact i do not use to play with polymorphic's shared_ptr. the instance "a" was not a shared_ptr in my code :
void main()
{
scoped_ptr<A> a;
shared_ptr<B> b(new B);
a = b; // no copy ctor available.
}
After correction (replacement of scoped_ptr with shared_ptr), it works fine.
Thanks a lot Darin.
Darin Adler
Just wondering if there is some issue to the following problem (a and b instance are not in the same block code in true life of course) : class A; class B : public A ...
void main() { shared_ptr<A> a; shared_ptr<B> b(new B); a = b; // what i would like, but it wont compile: no copy ctor available }
The above is an upcast, not a downcast. It should compile. If not, we have some sort of shared_ptr bug. But you can't compile a class B that inherits from A without the definition for class A; we need a real example here, because there are errors in the shorthand one you provided. If you are really talking about polymorphic smart pointer downcasts, even though your example here shows an upcast, then you probably want shared_polymorphic_downcast or shared_static_cast. Those are documented at http://boost.org/libs/smart_ptr/shared_ptr.htm. -- Darin --------------------------------- Yahoo! Mail -- Une adresse @yahoo.fr gratuite et en français ! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]