From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-04-17 01:07:58
Peter Dimov wrote:
> To get back to shared_ptr, given p and q of type shared_ptr, would you be
> extremely disappointed if after:
>
> p = move( q );
>
> q holds the old value of p instead of being empty?
>
> (Note that p may have had a value that you could consider "unsafe" in the
> context of the valid values of q.)
Thinking it twice. Wouldn't simple swap lead to the false impression
that the reference count for the object p was pointing was dropped? If p
was the last reference to that value, wouldn't the user be surprised if
value is not destroyed (with its side effects) just when p is
move-assigned? If the user does not destroy q, the value is staying
there. OTOH, this could make move-assignment more expensive because it
might destroy objects.
Just a thought,
Ion