"Greg Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > At 10:08 AM 1/28/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: > >[...] > >I think what Peter refers to is that C++ might change to make > >move semantics easier to implement. That would render the effort > >unnecessary.
Only if we don't want smart_ptr for another year or two, or whenever compiler vendors start shipping compilers that implement the new move syntax, and people start using them in force. > >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. Yes, that would be ideal. Unfortunately, I can't write a reference implementation using the move syntax or template typedefs with my magical pink C++0x compiler. Until such a compiler is written, it seems reasonable to offer what we can by way of move semantics. > Also, auto_ptr is an ugly hack that needn't be replicated. Disavowing your child? ;) Not everyone agrees with you. After all, we still have scoped_ptr<> and a move proposal. auto_ptr was just too far ahead of its time. ;) Dave _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
