🚀 go-pugleaf

In article: <44thrj$kid@gabi.gabi-soft.fr>  kanze@gabi-soft.fr (J. Kanze) writes:
> Dag Bruck (dag@net.dynasim.se) wrote:
> |> Because of the confusion, op= and the copy-ctor should be unimplemented
> |> (private) and the transfer of ownership implemented with some other
> |> function.  (This is also one of the Swedish Committee Draft Ballot
> |> comments.)
> 
> So how do you handle transfer of ownership in return values?
> 

If op= and the copy-ctor are unimplemented then it is probably inappropriate
to have a function that returns an auto_ptr<>.  It seems to me that this is not
a great loss as the same end result can still be achieved, albeit with different syntax,
by using a (possibly const) auto_ptr<> reference or pointer argument.  For example

	void f(auto_ptr<T>& p) { p.reset(new T); }

	void g()
	{
		auto_ptr<T> p;
		f(p);
		...
	}
	
-- 
Colin Chambers
cc@lagan.com


[ 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://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]