"David Abrahams" <dave@boost-consulting.com> wrote
I can't understand this claim. If the counter works properly, then it will stay valid.
This example was too simplified (and thus not to the point). More complex one: ----------------------- struct my_class { void* database_handle; my_class() { database_handle = allocate_handle(); } ~my_class() { destroy_db_handle(database_handle); } my_class& operator=(const my_class& other) { // no copy of database handle, not needed, // not useful here } my_class(const my_class& other) { database_handle = allocate_handle(); // needs unique db connection } }; circular_buffer<my_class> buffer(1); { my_class a; buffer.push_back(a); // 2 handles after function returns ... } { my_class b; buffer.push_back(b); // desctructor not called, handle lost ... } ----------------- To deal with lost resources you would need to modify operator=() to take ownership of all rhs resources. But in this case following will fail: my_class a; my_class b; a = b; // b is stripped of its handle now, cannot be used /Pavel