Subject: Re: [boost] [interprocess] default constructors
From: Ion Gaztañaga (igaztanaga_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-11-29 17:42:24
Jan Stetka wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Is there any reason why named_mutex and managed_shared_memory don't have
> a default constructor?
Because in the review the two step construction (default ctor + open())
was considered harmful. I guess now it would be useful in the presence
of move semantics. Is that your intended use case?
Regards,
Ion