🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>>> "JK" == J Kanze <kanze@gabi-soft.fr> writes:
[...]
JK> Well, I agree fully that it is bad programming practice to let
JK> exceptions propagate out of a destructor.  At present, however, it
JK> is legal C++ (although if the committee were to declare it
JK> undefined behavior, they wouldn't get any objections from me), and
JK> as such, should be taken into consideration when designing a
JK> *standard* library component.  (I *don't* take it into
JK> consideration when designing my own components.  But: if you don't
JK> like my style, you aren't obliged to use my components.  Everyone
                                                             ^^^^^^^^
JK> has to use the standard components, however.)
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I would like to contest that ;-)

Given the kind of overhead in the ``auto_ptr nouveau'', I'm unlikely
to want to use it... and nothing prevents me from that. As far as I
know, auto_ptr does not have any connections with the rest of the
language (i.e., if it were dropped, there would be no repercussions).
Furthermore, it's really not hard to fashion a auto_ptr-like template
that fits one's desired semantics.

In that light, it seems to me that a standard auto_ptr is a little
overkill... Fortunately, I'm not forced to use it and so don't care
too much.

	Daveed
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  To submit articles: Try just posting with your 
                newsreader.  If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu
  comp.std.c++ FAQ: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/faq.html
  Moderation policy: http://reality.sgi.com/austern/std-c++/policy.html
  Comments? mailto:std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu 
]