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

Peter Dimov pdimov@mmltd.net
Fri Oct 26 21:33:00 GMT 2007


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. 



More information about the Libstdc++ mailing list