220 29829 article Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: =?UTF-8?Q?Jonathan_M=C3=BCller?= Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: New smart pointer: CopyConstructible and CopyAssignable flavor of unique_ptr Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:26:18 +0100 Lines: 68 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <13702f32-32c2-447f-9996-3624fd678675@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1145b1ba4eb8ce0543c5adc0 X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1481891180 18487 195.159.176.226 (16 Dec 2016 12:26:20 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2016 12:26:20 +0000 (UTC) To: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCUMHC4Z6QGBB252Z7BAKGQESUCGEUY@isocpp.org Fri Dec 16 13:26:16 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-it0-f69.google.com ([209.85.214.69]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1cHraZ-0004DE-HY for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 13:26:15 +0100 Original-Received: by mail-it0-f69.google.com with SMTP id g187sf18127498itc.2 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 04:26:20 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isocpp-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post :list-help:list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=1GTTAcBlt+E3JYTxQ6uXzXFRo3kZBkQGBLKld1Lta4E=; b=njVVSTFFhrdQM/nuOGF7gHF9gF9mgsq0SBW1RgbvDP7UX8d6zstldOXOEID5VjmcLw /QAuSkyRWnG2whvlUFycbKVcOGlLin3fHfSDhUcNbnG6Qjiw+B5j1097UHSp+2BxCSEE B/aq/KcMJ4DVc2AWaizt11/SV9wSqR50nft59nZJI/2NHdjQ0xrgStuheXsoFtMlmOZt 2+Bfqzg8MAkCv03nueOCzzeW/MWAwLNax3Qof70gBUL39u1dZmZHpEec0qH5O0WYit56 m6UVxmsZH7jAgR0pSP5Qu6ghErWC31dkiJ/WxSDiyXKgNaLe5sPvxBGvs3Sy0oyKD1lT Vs7Q== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=1GTTAcBlt+E3JYTxQ6uXzXFRo3kZBkQGBLKld1Lta4E=; b=BGRA4aAZNi64IMbo0poG4Azd00kb0sdmNC3wlXlmmVVlslFBbXLsZAVFMOHZrBHz+q 3lVya76d6BuygxgDcSdUYsABgOuH3GWlNMRMAe0DcMwST53/oLEr2ho8JRhosgEryMNC RbVVY5OE5bL5RvzIhfyPJI0IJgDla1c4dBrJ6Be5WHYcygPuFUhkSE7eUVlXvRKfYd/7 hewNNk0v4r6xXoCRULf9K85zAtuaERPsJ4QPIQUY3AcaV1Yu/zwX6Wxg5L/G4At4OiDk Hn4Bl4p3111dTQ3YsCYz/jxAq+iW2gRSXqzbUHi4KzQufUC/cgnQO9E8Ffo4DCOs2ZTl UBhg== X-Gm-Message-State: AKaTC00Q/l5njAf41qjb0QKnKtyNV7N3F435SS+/WpBX7giIBlT2snIqw1p9HCVUmKc7tQ== X-Received: by 10.36.203.7 with SMTP id u7mr587047itg.7.1481891179850; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 04:26:19 -0800 (PST) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.157.17.195 with SMTP id y3ls8753518oty.26.gmail; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 04:26:19 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.55.148.70 with SMTP id w67mr2282069qkd.27.1481891179175; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 04:26:19 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from mail-qk0-x233.google.com (mail-qk0-x233.google.com. [2607:f8b0:400d:c09::233]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id t3si3040881qkc.99.2016.12.16.04.26.19 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Fri, 16 Dec 2016 04:26:19 -0800 (PST) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of jonathanmueller.dev@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c09::233 as permitted sender) client-ip=2607:f8b0:400d:c09::233; Original-Received: by mail-qk0-x233.google.com with SMTP id q130so88700254qke.1 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 04:26:19 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.55.207.210 with SMTP id v79mr2197321qkl.199.1481891178779; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 04:26:18 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.55.74.202 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 04:26:18 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: by 10.55.74.202 with HTTP; Fri, 16 Dec 2016 04:26:18 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: jonathanmueller.dev@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; dkim=pass header.i=@gmail.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of jonathanmueller.dev@gmail.com designates 2607:f8b0:400d:c09::233 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=jonathanmueller.dev@gmail.com; dmarc=pass (p=NONE dis=NONE) header.from=gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: 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:29829 Archived-At: --001a1145b1ba4eb8ce0543c5adc0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Dec 16, 2016 13:19, "Ville Voutilainen" wrote: > That doesn't provide the convenience we're looking for with these > proposed wrappers. The best thing > about them is that you can stash them into a struct and define no > special member functions for that > struct and you get the right semantics. Such a free function would > need to be called manually, and > it's not type-erasing and polymorphic, whereas the proposed indirect > and cloned_ptr are. But I don't think you get the right semantics for that, that's my point. You get inconsistent semantics. As a struct member I would rather have a non-null wrapper that gives value sematics to a polymorphic type. Not a mix between optional and unique_ptr. -- 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. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAEddoJZ%2BAR_UC_xheJnkn4yBg7iny3_BHNXHOa1M1%2BiZEpuqiQ%40mail.gmail.com. --001a1145b1ba4eb8ce0543c5adc0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Dec 16, 2016 13:19, "Ville Voutilainen" <ville.voutilainen@gmail.com= > wrote:
> That doesn't provide the convenience we're looking for with th= ese
> proposed wrappers. The best thing
> about them is that you can stash them into a struct and define no
> special member functions for that
> struct and you get the right semantics. Such a free function would
> need to be called manually, and
> it's not type-erasing and polymorphic, whereas the proposed indire= ct
> and cloned_ptr are.

But I don't think you get the right semantics for that, = that's my point.
You get inconsistent semantics.

As a struct member I would rather have a non-null wrapper th= at gives value sematics to a polymorphic type. Not a mix between optional a= nd unique_ptr.

--
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.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/CAEddoJZ%2BAR= _UC_xheJnkn4yBg7iny3_BHNXHOa1M1%2BiZEpuqiQ%40mail.gmail.com.
--001a1145b1ba4eb8ce0543c5adc0-- .