On Friday, November 04, 2011 12:02:56 Rhys Ulerich wrote:
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> Why not?
I'll chime in. None of boost::{shared,scoped}_{ptr,array}<T> allocate T instances within their constructors. That's (part of) what make_shared is intended to do. Avoiding redundant type specifications is auto/BOOST_AUTO's job. Rather than adding potentially ambiguous constructor overloads to well-defined, heavily-used classes, spend the time implementing boost::make_{shared,scoped}_array instead. auto + make_{shared,scoped}_array will accomplish what you want (avoiding specifying the type twice) and the functionality will benefit a much broader audience.
I hate to repeat myself, but +100500 for make_* functions.