On Friday, November 04, 2011 16:51:12 Olaf van der Spek wrote:
On Tue, Nov 1, 2011 at 5:40 PM, Richard Hadsell
<hadsell@blueskystudios.com> wrote:
On 11/01/2011 12:20 PM, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
Adding a (size_t) constructor would produce ambiguity errors, but those are easy to fix by using the default constructor instead. Would that be acceptable?
That sounds like a good idea.
Great. Does anyone else have comments / concerns about a (size_t) constructor?
I still don't like the idea. If you really want to add this feature, please retain the current interface intact. You could add a special manipulator to make the allpcation request explicit, like this: boost::scoped_array< int > p(boost::allocate_count(10)); Here allocate_count is a simple class that holds the size of the array to be allocated. Alternatively, Boost.Parameter could be used, but it is quite heavy for such basic tools like smart pointers.