On Tuesday, Jul 1, 2003, at 17:36 America/Denver, Schoenborn, Oliver wrote:
On Tuesday, Jul 1, 2003, at 14:38 America/Denver, Boost wrote:
Why is there no strict-ownership smart-pointer in boost? Just curious to know what the reasons are. Thanks,
What do want beyond what boost::scoped_ptr and std::auto_ptr provide?
Ability to be used in STL containers, and explicit transfer of ownership capabilities (e.g. *no* move-on-copy etc).
So what would the copy semantics be?
No copy allowed, except temporarily when inside the container to insert or
re-order or transfer from one container to another.
Oliver
You may be looking for something that just doesn't exist in the language yet:
http://anubis.dkuug.dk/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2002/ n1377.htm#move_ptr%20Example
This is a pointer with move semantics only, no copy semantics. And it does not move with copy syntax. Such a pointer is only a part of the solution. It also needs containers that know how to deal with a movable but non-copyable object. And of course language support makes everything click. :-\
I have experimented (actual working code) with what you're looking for. But the tools are *experimental* and not ready for prime time public use.
NTL ( http://www.ntllib.org/ ) claims to have this today (I think). I haven't looked at it closely enough to give a good review, but you might give it a go.
-Howard
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
