[C++ committee] auto_ptr removal in C++17 - request to comittie
Hello, If somebody on committee is on this list. I really want to do something to prevent auto_ptr removal. It is exceptionally useful smart pointer in C++2003 and it is needed by the code that needs to be compatible for both 2003 and 2017. It is needed by libraries that aim to be compatible with C++2003. In the real world there is a huge codebase that uses C++2003 why to break something that works - especially since it works quite well. It isn't "gets" that can't be used securely. C++ committee please stop breaking existing code even if std::unique_ptr much better it does not exist in C++2003. Artyom
Am 07.08.2017 um 07:32 schrieb Artyom Beilis via Boost:
Hello,
If somebody on committee is on this list. I really want to do something to prevent auto_ptr removal. Even if, wrong list. Go to the standard mailing lists. Also it's already approved, so you're way too late. It is exceptionally useful smart pointer in C++2003 and it is needed by the code that needs to be compatible for both 2003 and 2017. You can use boost::shared_ptr prior to C++11.
It is needed by libraries that aim to be compatible with C++2003. In the real world there is a huge codebase that uses C++2003 why to break something that works - especially since it works quite well. It isn't "gets" that can't be used securely.
It's not the hard: #if __cplusplus <= 199711L std::auto_ptr<foo> thiny; #else std::shared_ptr<foo> thingy; #endif
C++ committee please stop breaking existing code even if std::unique_ptr much better it does not exist in C++2003.
Then do not use C++17, simple as that. If you want full C++98 compatibility, use C++98.
Artyom
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
On 08/07/17 08:32, Artyom Beilis via Boost wrote:
Hello,
If somebody on committee is on this list. I really want to do something to prevent auto_ptr removal.
It is exceptionally useful smart pointer in C++2003 and it is needed by the code that needs to be compatible for both 2003 and 2017.
It is needed by libraries that aim to be compatible with C++2003. In the real world there is a huge codebase that uses C++2003 why to break something that works - especially since it works quite well. It isn't "gets" that can't be used securely.
C++ committee please stop breaking existing code even if std::unique_ptr much better it does not exist in C++2003.
I think this is better placed on the std-discussion list[1], although I doubt it will have effect. If you want your code to be portable across different C++ versions I would suggest using boost::unique_ptr[2] universally. If you just want to delete objects when leaving scope, there is a more lightweight alternative: boost::scoped_ptr and boost::scoped_array[3]. [1]: https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/std-discussi... [2]: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_64_0/doc/html/move/reference.html#header.boo... [3]: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_64_0/libs/smart_ptr/smart_ptr.htm
participants (3)
-
Andrey Semashev -
Artyom Beilis -
Klemens Morgenstern