Re: auto_ptr?

[Nathan Myers <ncm at cygnus dot com>]

Joe Buck wrote:
> 
> > In the memory include file I read:
> >
> >  | // Note: auto_ptr is commented out in this release because the
> >  | // details of the interface are still being discussed by the C++
> >  | // standardization committee. It will be included once the iterface
> >  | // is finalized.
> >  |
> >  | #if 0
> >  | [...]
> >
> > Is this still true? I was under the impression that auto_ptr has been
> > settled by now. At least it is covered in great detail in Stroustrup's
> > latest edition of "The C++ programming language" and quite a few
> > programs I tried to compile want to use it. Just curious.
> 
> It's now settled.  However, the settlement wasn't final until November
> 1997, so at the time the file was written the comment was accurate.
> 
> I am not certain that Stroustrup's book exactly matches the final
> decision (which came out quite different from the Dec. 1996 draft you'll
> find on www.cygnus.com).

The "final" settlement may be found among Stroustrup's errata:

  http://www.research.att.com/~bs/3rd_printing5.html

or in the 5th printing of his book.

However, this is not so final as might be thought: it has some serious
usability problems, and egcs doesn't like it.  (Moving the member template 
auto_ptr_ref out of the class template helps.)  There will probably be a 
defect report affecting auto_ptr, but it shouldn't affect code which doesn't 
mention auto_ptr_ref.

Nathan Myers
ncm@cantrip.org