Am Wednesday 16 September 2009 16:01:00 schrieb Felipe Magno de Almeida:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 12:54 PM, Stefan Strasser
<strasser@uni-bremen.de> wrote:
Am Wednesday 16 September 2009 10:34:35 schrieb Berserker:
Dmitry Goncharov wrote: > The difficulty that your example demonstrates is caused by the nature > of template template parameters. scoped_ptr should not be blamed for
that.
I agree, moreover I think that the advantages of this patch (often required in the list)
could you explain what those advantages are? a scoped_ptr can't be copied at can't be moved. so there are two use cases left for a scoped_ptr deleter:
- scoped_ptr as a class member: execute code when the class gets destructed -> that's what a destructor is for.
You could say the same for use delete in the destructor and never use scoped_ptr at all.
the point of a deleter is to execute CUSTOM code at destruction. using scoped_ptr (without deleter) automates deletion so you don't have to write custom code that does that. that simplifies things a lot. but a scoped_ptr delete would provide the same thing as a destructor or a scope exit: execute custom code. the only reason shared_ptr or unique_ptr do have deleters is because the point of destruction aren't statically known, as they can be copied or moved.