From: Noel Yap (Noel.Yap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-03 18:37:02
"Justin M. Lewis" wrote:
> > > How would you handle a class member
> > > that's not a pointer?
> >
> > I don't understand. Why not take the it's address?
> >
>
> You were suggesting auto_ptr, auto_ptr deletes its contents on destruction,
> you can't delete a pointer that's taken from unallocated data.
I had a few suggestions.
You're right that std::auto_ptr<> isn't a one-size-fits all strategy.
BTW, I consider all memory to be allocated -- the differences are where
and how its allocated.
If std::auto_ptr<> isn't usable in your situation, boost::dumb_ptr<>
should be.
> > Since dumb_ptr is just a wrapper around pointers, you can still avoid
> > using pointers, unless you consider references not to be pointers.
I didn't get a response from this comment.
> > Also, what stops people from:
> >
> > T t = out( t_ );
> > f( t ); // this is an out parameter
> >
> > T t = in_out( t_ );
> > f( t ); // this is an in/out parameter
Neither from this.
Noel