Thorsten Ottosen wrote: [snip]
The cases where a call to a destructor is actually important beacuse it does some non-trivial work, one really need to ensure not even temporary objects of the type exists. That's one of
"Alberto Barbati" <abarbati@iaanus.com> wrote in message news:c2hhhi$lgs$1@sea.gmane.org... the
capabilities my smart containers will allow, ie, "overwriting" really means destructing and replacing.
I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here. I started my sentence with "For primitive types"...
yeah, I could have said it better :-) What I meant was that copy-behavior is ususally incompatible with non-trivial destructors. What I mean by non-trivial destructors is that eg. a file is closed or a connection is closed. In those cases making temporaries and copies is not good: you want more explicit control over when the destructor is called. (hence you need a container of heap-allocated objects and not something like vector<Socket> ) For most value-like objects we have the opposite situation and we don't mind if an object is overwritten by assignment of if destructors are called. br Thorsten