From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-02 07:05:52
From: "Greg Colvin" <Gregory.Colvin_at_[hidden]>
> At 09:51 AM 9/30/2002, you wrote:
> >I think the idea is that boost attempts to deprecate the usage of
auto_ptr.
>
> I think that would be premature. We don't have move semantics
> yet, and even if/when we get them there is a lot of inertia
> behind auto_ptr.
Yep. There is a niche where auto_ptr is unchallenged (as of yet):
"transparent" function return values (i.e. the caller knows that the object
has been allocated with "new X" and can claim ownership with release().)
(As opposed to "opaque" function return values - caller knows nothing about
allocation details - where shared_ptr is unchallenged.)