220 21076 <2250773e-709d-4381-b5ca-f6ed4ce19691@isocpp.org> article Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: j4cbo@dropbox.com Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: optional_ptr - A smart pointer which optionally owns the resource Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:46:40 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 63 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: <2250773e-709d-4381-b5ca-f6ed4ce19691@isocpp.org> References: <7502c195-e5b9-4f04-8997-666933cef239@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_4904_605814047.1443656800192" X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1443656804 16468 80.91.229.3 (30 Sep 2015 23:46:44 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2015 23:46:44 +0000 (UTC) To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBDA33E6DSAORBYPIWGYAKGQE2I5MF7Q@isocpp.org Thu Oct 01 01:46:44 2015 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-vk0-f72.google.com ([209.85.213.72]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1ZhR58-00046s-OZ for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Thu, 01 Oct 2015 01:46:42 +0200 Original-Received: by vkgd64 with SMTP id d64sf60092192vkg.2 for ; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:46:41 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dropbox.com; s=corp; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=rGNGp8EQIdyi9/LObyKUWcuDxrpc2MFFg3fHh+NwGho=; b=kCsxLP7pCC1RAYLNl8mBVhx/YOl2gxLUqrLGjM9dMjgUg4uKvPxlD3bBXuwEYYQDhJ P8kwfbYxXEuib7mj1DXQ4GRqF1mBzcUoMI67cX9jDRJVd4W1ZKRav0QP3w71/K40wE9g cK38DOuT/X/ygqKINyjpBe92wH8Q4H/nNh0F4= X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:content-type:x-original-sender:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=rGNGp8EQIdyi9/LObyKUWcuDxrpc2MFFg3fHh+NwGho=; b=BVy8LfDv6pdct6Eydpht3MQ0+PRNQ/ufjppsTFcmoyI9iDxvmZ+FXw6vA/tQ4v4/VS bZzDldJ1DZ3CZlJef/a3iH08vMDIG695DKsYfqDgPZ5lZCT+EoMRZmwyfL4fpP7XmNwW 5LZKDGJnmtM5CTUFsTpahothqlopWmIFoGDgogdjVlG1gQYQ4Lg1yAdOujIhkdTx6mKy +Tz/KC9dT/Plrc5S285dnI1k1rFwXgdLj/itaQarCqIpFIKSmgMScdTvY7Tx3mV8gWp4 H+PlHfrcggr1lB9bIJOkI7VdplyqFwqKY2ePCnDUu9qzfdMg6NQv0XoQzGXWE48c7TbG yyqw== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkyln+l3Ld1U8TrfQyq7Ok/Z5FJqHDxc188T/b1O9JPllh8d5KKUKXh/u05qJM4bI9cgaZL X-Received: by 10.129.109.211 with SMTP id i202mr5488915ywc.16.1443656801816; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:46:41 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.107.159.67 with SMTP id i64ls432552ioe.41.gmail; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:46:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.50.67.111 with SMTP id m15mr705igt.13.1443656800997; Wed, 30 Sep 2015 16:46:40 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: j4cbo@dropbox.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Spam-Checked-In-Group: std-proposals@isocpp.org X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:21076 Archived-At: ------=_Part_4904_605814047.1443656800192 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_4905_543818424.1443656800192" ------=_Part_4905_543818424.1443656800192 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 4:31:57 PM UTC-7, Arthur O'Dwyer wrote: > > Nit on the latter suggestion: > shared_ptr(shared_ptr&&, T*) does not exist, so the above makes an > unnecessary copy. > This is more like a defect in the Standard than a problem with the above > idiom, though. > I'd like a shared_ptr(std::nullptr_t, T*) constructor too. (Would require some SFINAE in the (nullptr_t, Deleter) constructor to avoid ambiguity.) Anyone wanna write a proposal? :) -- --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/. ------=_Part_4905_543818424.1443656800192 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wednesday, September 30, 2015 at 4:31:57 PM UTC-7, Arth= ur O'Dwyer wrote:
Nit on the latter suggestion:=
shared_ptr(shared_ptr<Y>&&, T*) does not exist, so= the above makes an unnecessary copy.
This is more like a defect = in the Standard than a problem with the above idiom, though.

I'd like a shared_ptr(std::nu= llptr_t, T*) constructor too. (Would require some SFINAE in the (nullptr_t,= Deleter) constructor to avoid ambiguity.) Anyone wanna write a proposal? := )

--

---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposa= ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/group/std-proposals/<= /a>.
------=_Part_4905_543818424.1443656800192-- ------=_Part_4904_605814047.1443656800192-- .