From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-29 18:05:04
David Abrahams wrote:
>> On top of that there could be the friendlier: make_auto_ptr,
>> make_shared_ptr, etc...
>
> None of that is particularly friendly compared to new_<T>(a,b,c)... as
> long if we have the appropriate non-explicit converting constructor
> from auto_ptr rvalues in all the other smart pointers.
make_shared_ptr<T>( a, b, c ) (or however we end up calling it) still has
the advantage of being able to fold the two allocations into one.