Re: [v3] annex D 8 and 9 for C++0x

["Peter Dimov" <pdimov at mmltd dot net>]

Benjamin Kosnik:

> > Do we really need to warn about auto_ptr<>?
>
> Is it in Annex D in C++0x? If so, then yes. Why would it be treated
> differently than anything else?

One alternative that hasn't been mentioned is to "fix" it instead of 
deprecating it wholesale:

template<class T> class auto_ptr
{
public:

   auto_ptr( auto_ptr && r );
   auto_ptr( auto_ptr & r ) __attribute__( deprecated );
};

The idea is to keep code that uses it as if it were an unique_ptr 
warning-free. I don't know how practical this would be, though.