From: Mark Rodgers (mark.rodgers_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-03 15:38:49
From: "Rainer Deyke" <root_at_[hidden]>
> It sounds like your 'auto_vector' avoids some of the problems of a
> container of auto_ptrs by conceptually being a container of vanilla
> pointers. Unfortunately this has its own set of problems. Consider:
>
> auto_vector<Cat> cats;
> cats.push_back(new Cat);
> cats[0] = new Cat; // Error: memory leak
With my current version, yes this is unfortunately true. I know
enough not to do that, and so it has never been a problem for me.
I regard auto_vector as being convenient and not full proof.
If more safety is required, I guess we could look at making
operator[], front, and back return values rather than references.
But it would still cause a leak if you did a
*cats.begin() = new Cat;
We could then make all iterators const, but that would stop us
sorting the vector. Then I guess we could add a sort member
function.
Or I guess we could go the whole hog and return some sort of
proxy that deleted the current pointer on assignment.
But I don't know if the added safety of either is worth the
trouble. What do others think? Keep it simple or make it safe?
Mark