20 May
2017
20 May
'17
3:45 p.m.
Am 20.05.2017 um 17:28 schrieb Andrey Semashev via Boost:
... Personally, I would prefer libraries to switch to boost::unique_ptr and leave std::auto_ptr interfaces available (but deprecated) for backward compatibility.
But, if you break the interface and people's code by replacing std::auto_ptr by boost::unique_ptr (is there such a thing in the first place, I couldn't find one in Boost.Smart_ptr?), why not just going straight to std::unique_ptr? Users affected by this problem definitely have std::unique_ptr available and certainly don't need a non-standard compatibility solution. What does a boost:unique_ptr solution buy you? Ciao Dani -- PGP/GPG: 2CCB 3ECB 0954 5CD3 B0DB 6AA0 BA03 56A1 2C4638C5