From 6880981687956676753
X-Google-Thread: f78e5,174aa7b34b06a51
X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!nx02.iad01.newshosting.com!newshosting.com!news-peer0-test!news-peer-test!btnet!newsfeed.icl.net!newsfeed.fjserv.net!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!stump.algebra.com!devnull
From: dave@boost-consulting.com (David Abrahams)
Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
Subject: Re: Is this really unspecified behavior?
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 03:02:44 GMT
Lines: 58
Sender: mail2news@demon.net
Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++)
Message-ID: <87r7896z8e.fsf@boost-consulting.com>
References: <1132759176.368850.264850@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
	<H1phf.161529$zb5.99785@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>
	<1132933832.802917.153350@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
	<1133551647.532929.325730@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>
	<1133583412.951239.208510@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
	<E1EjGBD-0005T8-00@chx400.switch.ch>
	<1133910546.716987.80030@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
	<E1EjzL6-0006ic-00@chx400.switch.ch>
	<0l5ep1ppfhdj5p1pcu7e4na4ub0vjajlq3@4ax.com>
	<IrIz47.GnJ"@beaver.cs.washington.edu>
	<uzmn23zsm.fsf@boost-consulting.com>
	<200512161412.jBGECcuC061966@horus.isnic.is>
	<uwti43m41.fsf@boost-consulting.com>
	<howard.hinnant-DB53B6.14161817122005@syrcnyrdrs-02-ge0.nyroc.rr.com>
	<87bqzfp5t2.fsf@boost-consulting.com>
	<howard.hinnant-21E8B6.22293318122005@syrcnyrdrs-02-ge0.nyroc.rr.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: news.news.demon.net
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1135047769 10375 158.152.254.254 (20 Dec 2005 03:02:49 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 03:02:49 +0000 (UTC)
X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov)
X-User-Agent: Gnus/5.110004 (No Gnus v0.4) Emacs/22.0.50 (gnu/linux)
X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@rcn.net
X-Greylisting: NO DELAY (Relay+Sender autoqualified);
	processed by UCSD_GL-v2.1 on mailbox4.ucsd.edu;
	Mon, 19 December 2005 04:35:55 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
X-Cancel-Lock: sha1:2sCFrj1sfnPznyRpqzhb9Ce1u8E=
X-Received: (from fjh@localhost)
	by mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.9/Submit) id jBK32inp029950;
	Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:02:44 +1100 (EST)
X-Path: comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail
X-NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 06:35:53 -0600
X-Delivered-To: std-c++@ucar.edu
X-TN-Interface: 209.99.127.23
X-Spamscanner: mailbox4.ucsd.edu  (v1.6 Aug  4 2005 15:27:38, 0.0/5.0 3.0.4)
X-Postfilter: 1.3.32
X-Authentication-Warning: serv3.gc.dca.giganews.com: news set sender to poster@giganews.com using -f
X-Newsgroups: comp.std.c++
X-MailScanner: PASSED (v1.2.8 21124 jBJCZsSb025846 mailbox4.ucsd.edu)
Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:2839

howard.hinnant@gmail.com (Howard Hinnant) writes:

> In article <87bqzfp5t2.fsf@boost-consulting.com>,
>  dave@boost-consulting.com (David Abrahams) wrote:
>
>> > Smart pointer factory functions in C++0X sound great.  Let's have
>> > them (I hope to see your proposal soon).  
>> 
>> EWG or LWG?
>
> LWG please.  If you see core issues also involved (perhaps variadic 
> templates, or rvalue reference?), I'll make sure the EWG knows they have 
> more motivation for this core issue.  Workarounds (if possible) for lack 
> of core issues are appreciated.

Sure, that's easy enough.  Ping me after the first week of January,
though, if you *really* want it; it's likely to fall off the radar
otherwise.

>> The general case is something like:
>> 
>>   f( fancy_component<T>( create_handle<T>() ), g() );
>> 
>> There's a lot going on in that line.
>
> My point is that if the above line is effectively:
>
> evaluate_in_any_order
> {
>     auto t1(fancy_component<T>( create_handle<T>() ));
>     auto t2(g());

[don't use tabs :)]

> }
> f(t1, t2);
>
> that the world would be significantly safer than it is today

I'm just not convinced of how significant it is, yet.  People will
still be commonly trafficing in unmanaged resources, and we won't have
fixed that.

> while at the same time allowing compilers to continue with
> significant optimizations (admittedly curtailing some that are
> allowable today).

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com

---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles, try just posting with ]
[ your news-reader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu    ]
[              --- Please see the FAQ before posting. ---               ]
[ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html                       ]



