"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message b16a0k$7sv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b16a0k$7sv$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > "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?
I think what Peter refers to is that C++ might change to make move semantics easier to implement. That would render the effort unnecessary. If smart_ptr is to be proposed for standardization, the committee can just as well package the new smart_ptr together with new language features, notably move semantics and template typedefs which would fit smart_ptr like a glove. Andrei _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
