🚀 go-pugleaf

In message <AUSTERN.96Feb5113807@isolde.mti.sgi.com> - austern@isolde.mti.sgi.c
om (Matt Austern) writes:
[...]
:>:>This leads to an interesting question: given the (current or proposed)
:>semantics of auto_ptr<X>, how many situations can you think of where
:>it is actually useful and correct to transfer ownership from one
:>auto_ptr to another?  
[...]

We pass ownership of objects around.  In C you had to "know" if
ownership was passed to know who was responsible for the object.
auto_ptrs with copy and assignment seem fine to me.  You
only do it when you are passing ownership.  As a parameter
I would pass the actual pointer or a ref rather than the autoptr if I 
expected to retain ownership.  On return values it means than the caller
is receiving ownership of an object.  You still can have the dangling 
reference problem, but if that is important (I rarely see it in my 
environment) you use reference counted pointers.


Ken Walter

* All the above is hearsay and the opinion of nobody in particular


[ 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://reality.sgi.com/employees/austern_mti/std-c++/policy.html
]