"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message b16e3r$u0n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b16e3r$u0n$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > > It depends on what your design goals are. If you want to create the > > One True Smart Pointer Design, then yes, auto_ptr<> emulation is a > > must. > > I think this is a good goal. ;>
I've shown with facts that it's less of an unattainable goal than it might seen. > > > 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? > > > > Interesting question. Do you have an example? > > You would call me on that, wouldn't you? Ok, I can't think of a > resource that would *require* move semantics (which is why I didn't > mention one in the first place, but I hoped maybe someone more > imaginative than I would pipe up with an example ;). I've needed that for mutex types, for instance. Andrei _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
