A big thank you to Peter Dimov who has been kind enough to review my code. The open question we both have is whether these functions should continue to return shared_ptr<T> or be changed to return shared_array<T> after some modification to shared_array (both to support construction from (or conversion to) a shared_ptr and to have things like a no-throw constructor). Updated code: https://github.com/glenfe/glenfern/tree/master/boost Original blog post: http://glenfernandes.wordpress.com/ Some context from our discussion: Peter Dimov wrote:

Providing two separate sets of functions doesn't appeal to me much. make_shared_array should return whatever we decide they should return. You are right about shared_array's default constructor though, and maybe we can use this opportunity to fix it (and add move support), and perhaps provide a way for people to get a shared_ptr from a shared_array, if they have to work with other people who only use that in their APIs. :-)

Let's see what the Boost list will say.

Glen Fernandes wrote:

...

1. I keep the functions returning shared_ptr but rename them to allocate_shared_sequence and make_shared_sequence. I think they are still useful for people who would want to avoid shared_array in their APIs for various reasons (e.g. its default constructor can throw).