From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-29 18:02:15
David Abrahams wrote:
> Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> It is better that new_<T>(...) produces an unspecified type
>> that has a templated conversion operator, eg.:
>>
>> template< class T >
>> struct new_return
>> {
>> std::auto_ptr<T> new_;
>>
>> new_return( T* new_ ) : new_(new_)
>> { }
>>
>> template< class SP >
>> operator SP() const
>> {
>> return SP( new_.release() );
>> }
>>
>> operator std::auto_ptr<T>() const
>> {
>> return new_;
>> }
>> };
>>
>> Or something
>
> I started down that road, but unfortunately, there's nothing to keep
> the operator SP conversion from converting to raw pointers. ;-)
>
> I don't see why Peter is the only one who seems to be responding to
> the auto_ptr rvalue implicit conversion technique. It just works.
>
Indeed.
I agree is better than my initial proposal, and better than the parametrized
conversion op, for the reason you just gave.
Fernando Cacciola