Yuval Ronen wrote:
Peter Dimov wrote:
Yuval Ronen wrote:
Hi. I wondered what the reason that there is a 'operator=(auto_ptr<Y>&)' but there isn't any 'void reset(auto_ptr<Y>&'. This seems to me as asymmetry.
At first I thought the reason that reset(Y*) is supplied instead of operator=(Y*), is that Y* assignment needs to be explicit (as the constructor is explicit) and operator= doesn't allow explicity (is there such a word?). But if this assumtion is correct, then there is contradiction between the constructor for auto_ptr, which is explicit, and the operator= for auto_ptr, which is not explicit. Am I talking nonsense?
No, you make a lot of sense, and reset(auto_ptr&) indeed seems more consistent than operator=. But it's too late to change that now. :-)
Then I guess I'll have to live with it... :-)
Or not... I just thought that if we combine this with the conclusion of the discussion about temporary auto_ptrs being passed to shared_ptr constructors (with the '.release()'), then the result is that I can't assign a temporary auto_ptr to a shred_ptr. If I had a reset(auto_ptr<Y> &), then I could call it with .release(), but since all I have is operator=(auto_ptr<Y> &), I can't use .release(), as I don't have operator=(Y*). No temporary auto_ptrs for me... :-(