I wrote:
I don't think this is a new idea. It's a simple for of
transfer-of-ownership.
And Dave Held wrote:
Yup. It's a member-initializer version of ScopeGuard(TM).
And then I wrote something which was at best badly-phrased:
I love it when people put trademarked names on trivial things
Terje Slettebø [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
From: Jason House [EMAIL PROTECTED]
I have two comments about the proposal
...
2. Section 2.5 (Different Declarations) rubs me the wrong way. Thr
proposal does say that some people dislike this, and I guess I'm one of
them.
...
As I understand
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
What about the extra size due to the common compiler feature, no
empty base optimization in the presence of MI? That was another
problem solved by using a chain of policy templates.
[...]
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
That's OK if the class which ultimately takes posession of p (not
base_type, I think, but storage... or is it ownership?) is _required_
to take it by reference. Does such a requirement exist?
Larry Evans [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
Only if you want to collect cycles or provide some other means for
accessing the arcs in the pointer graph. As a matter of fact, it may
be better to do somewhat like shared_ptr does, i.e.
David B. Held [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
David Abrahams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote in message
[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
[...]
What about the extra size due to the common compiler feature, no
empty base optimization in the presence of MI? That was another
problem solved by
101 - 106 of 106 matches
Mail list logo
