"Fernando Cacciola" <fernando_cacciola@hotmail.com> writes:
David Abrahams wrote:
David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com> writes:
Ulrich Eckhardt <doomster@knuut.de> writes:
On Wednesday 29 March 2006 08:05, Václav Veselý wrote:
I'm confused with syntax. new_<T> always creates auto_ptr<T>. How can I create for example shared_ptr<T>?
You probably can't, but: - std::auto_ptr is much less resource intensive (shared_ptr requires an additionally, dynamically-allocated structure to hold some internals) - you don't need to, as auto_ptr converts to shared_ptr, there is a special ctor taking an auto_ptr
Unfortunately for this particular facility, the converting constructor is explicit, so you can't do
f(new_<T>(a, b, c))
if f takes a shared_ptr<T>.
Then isn't it worth generalizing new_<> to all sorts of smart pointer and handles?
Like:
f( new_< any_smart_ptr<T> >(a, b, c)) ;
As long as there's a way to get the 'element_type' from 'any_smart_ptr' it'll work.
Yes, as I wrote elsewhere in this thread, I did write a version that makes that possible.
On top of that there could be the friendlier: make_auto_ptr, make_shared_ptr, etc...
None of that is particularly friendly compared to new_<T>(a,b,c)... as long if we have the appropriate non-explicit converting constructor from auto_ptr rvalues in all the other smart pointers. Peter's already made that change to shared_ptr and I'm sure it's just a matter of time before that change is propagated to the other Boost smart pointers. -- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com