From 8556605289449503203 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,52dd3e1082ac085e X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news4.google.com!news.glorb.com!border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.speakeasy.net!news.speakeasy.net.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 05 Sep 2005 16:50:20 -0500 Return-Path: X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) Delivered-To: std-c++@ucar.edu From: thorsten.ottosen@dezide.com Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: unique_ptr Organization: http://groups.google.com Message-ID: <1125946895.333900.88980@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> References: <1125603471.570361.32720@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com User-Agent: G2/0.2 X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe) Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com Injection-Info: g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com; posting-host=194.192.110.10; posting-account=u6ioRQ0AAAAsnrNzUsWML0OL2lIx3WFM X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at ucar.edu X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU Approved: Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++ X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU Date: Mon, 5 Sep 2005 16:44:19 CST Lines: 59 NNTP-Posting-Host: 65.182.171.162 X-Trace: sv3-6nAEUBTEk0KrhifalA6w6zvJ8iwMZY0xn+qpO6h+GQGvxXtIMPCLkllQpy4UxUvhKvFvRo8n5CK8OJt!j3EKv1B10cDXSvvO6pQ+S4mM/HMXATIhYSO02KRmwNrHNLReZA1dCOcfINFAVKqiVtOejvmslNcr!MkBa2nxOBbAXtpbV2gSRjJahOt6GjZ869/td0Syekw== X-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net X-DMCA-Complaints-To: abuse@speakeasy.net X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.32 Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:2020 Howard Hinnant wrote: > In article <1125603471.570361.32720@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>, > "l.j.persson@gmail.com" wrote: > > > Hello, > > I was just reading the excellent proposal on unique_ptr > > (http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2005/n1856.html). > > But I have a question on the constructor: why doesn't it take a T*&& > > parameter? > > > > explicit unique_ptr(T*&& p); > > > > If I understand rvalues correctly that would mean: > > > > unique_ptr ui(new int); // Ok > > int* pi = new int; > > unique_ptr ui(pi); // Not Ok [snip] > That's a very interesting suggestion! > > I must admit that I'm waffling on it at the moment. At first I thought > it sounded great, and I prototyped it right up. But then I used that > prototype to start looking at some of my use cases, and my enthusiasm is > waning. While we're discussion potential correctness issues, then we should probably consider adding functions like template unique_ptr make_unique_ptr( U&& ); [etc for X arguments]. The motivating example would be foo( make_unique_ptr( "foo" ), make_unique_ptr( "bar" ) ); which is exception-safe whereas foo( unique_ptr( new T("foo") ), unique_ptr( new T("bar") ) ); is not. Similar stuff has been discussed for shared_ptr. br -Thorsten --- [ 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 ]