In-Reply-To: <cjbuc0$csa$1@sea.gmane.org> nesotto@cs.auc.dk (Thorsten Ottosen) wrote (abridged):

It has never been the intention to support a path of "upgrade". The semantics are very different from vector<shared_ptr<T> > and ptr_vector<T>. The semantics are closer to vector<T> when it comes to "copying".

OK, thanks. It sounds like the library isn't really doing what I expect or want. To the point where I question whether "ptr_vector" is a good name for it, since it does not behave like a vector of pointers. Maybe something like "poly_vector" would better reflect the intent. I think I've missed the end of the review period now - they just whizz past, don't they? - but that probably doesn't matter because all I can really say is that I don't think I am a prospective user of the library. I might have been interested in a container which took ownership of the things pointed-to, but was otherwise a simple container of pointers. -- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK