"Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message 009f01c2c6d7$91024ab0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:009f01c2c6d7$91024ab0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2... > [...] > The first question, of course, is: do you really need SmartPtr<...> to > support move semantics (in current C++)?
Why wouldn't you want that? At the very least, it seems like a glaring omission to create a smart pointer framework that can't even emulate auto_ptr<>. Beyond that, it seems that there are resources that would benefit from or outright require move semantics to work properly, and why wouldn't you want to let SmartPtr<> manage those? Dave _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
