Subject: Re: [Boost-users] scoped_ptr::release (again)
From: Nat Goodspeed (nat_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-24 11:56:32
Christopher Jefferson wrote:
> I'd vote for keeping scoped_ptr as simple as possible, even removing
> that swap, and directing people who want more power to unique_ptr.
I'd like to keep swap(). If the coder wants to disable it, wouldn't
'const scoped_ptr' suffice?
If I have a class that supports assignment, and my class uses scoped_ptr
to manage some resource, Herb Sutter's exception-safe assignment
operator still applies:
1. Construct a new stack scoped_ptr with the incoming resource. An
exception here leaves *this unmolested.
2. Swap the member scoped_ptr with the new scoped_ptr. (swap() is
guaranteed not to throw.)
3. Leaving the assignment-operator method body destroys the temp stack
scoped_ptr, releasing the member scoped_ptr's previous data.