Kazutoshi Satoda skrev:
Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
Hm. Do you propose to break the existing interface?
map.insert(some_key(...), std::auto_ptr<value>(new value)); (snip) I want to hear about some compatibility policy in Boost to guess the
Yes, I personally believe that the following use should be banned by design. possibility of this kind of breaking (but otherwise good) changes.
Well, you also break perfectly valid and safe code where the auto pointer is returned from a function.
Hmm, I didn't think of such code. I agree such code is valid and safe.
However, as far as I know, there is no way to distinguish the two; a temporary auto_ptr, and a returned auto_ptr. Then the interface can allow both, or disallow both. I still think the latter is better choice in a generic library.
Do you think passing a temporary auto_ptr should be allowed to allow passing a returned auto_ptr?
Oh yes. Generic libraries in particular needs to be useable rather than over-encapsulated. If there is a real need for operations with the strong guarantee, I think we should add them with the following signature: strong_push_back( std::auto_ptr<U>&, ... ); albeit they can be implemeted by a user because you have access to the underlying container with .base(): std::auto_ptr<U> ptr( ... ); cont.base().push_back( ptr.get() ); ptr.release(); -Thorsten