From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-08 08:40:45
"Alberto Barbati" <abarbati_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:c2hhhi$lgs$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
[snip]
> > The cases where a call to a destructor is actually important beacuse it
does
> > some
> > non-trivial work, one really need
> > to ensure not even temporary objects of the type exists. That's one of
the
> > capabilities my smart containers will allow, ie, "overwriting" really
means
> > destructing and replacing.
>
> I'm sorry, I don't understand what you are trying to say here. I started
> my sentence with "For primitive types"...
yeah, I could have said it better :-) What I meant was that copy-behavior is
ususally
incompatible with non-trivial destructors. What I mean by non-trivial
destructors is that
eg. a file is closed or a connection is closed. In those cases making
temporaries and copies
is not good: you want more explicit control over when the destructor is
called. (hence you need a
container of heap-allocated objects and not something like vector<Socket> )
For most value-like objects we have the opposite situation and we don't
mind if an object is overwritten by
assignment of if destructors are called.
br
Thorsten