home *** CD-ROM | disk | FTP | other *** search
- Path: engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM!taumet!clamage
- From: solution@gate.net (Ken Walter)
- Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
- Subject: Re: Cleaning auto_ptr copy semantics.
- Date: 6 Feb 1996 20:59:39 GMT
- Organization: Solution Technology
- Approved: clamage@eng.sun.com (comp.std.c++)
- Message-ID: <4f8djf$1jja@news.gate.net>
- References: <01BAF15D.08B8EEE0@dino.int.com> <31153AC5.1776@suphys.physics.su.oz.au>
- NNTP-Posting-Host: taumet.eng.sun.com
- Content-Type: text
- X-Nntp-Posting-Host: dfbfl2-53.gate.net
- X-Newsreader: NeoLogic News for OS/2 [version: 4.2]
- Content-Length: 1016
- X-Lines: 24
- Originator: clamage@taumet
-
- In message <AUSTERN.96Feb5113807@isolde.mti.sgi.com> - austern@isolde.mti.sgi.c
- om (Matt Austern) writes:
- [...]
- :>:>This leads to an interesting question: given the (current or proposed)
- :>semantics of auto_ptr<X>, how many situations can you think of where
- :>it is actually useful and correct to transfer ownership from one
- :>auto_ptr to another?
- [...]
-
- We pass ownership of objects around. In C you had to "know" if
- ownership was passed to know who was responsible for the object.
- auto_ptrs with copy and assignment seem fine to me. You
- only do it when you are passing ownership. As a parameter
- I would pass the actual pointer or a ref rather than the autoptr if I
- expected to retain ownership. On return values it means than the caller
- is receiving ownership of an object. You still can have the dangling
- reference problem, but if that is important (I rarely see it in my
- environment) you use reference counted pointers.
-
-
- Ken Walter
-
- * All the above is hearsay and the opinion of nobody in particular
-
-
- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
- Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu. The moderation policy is
- summarized in http://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html
- ]
-