about the safety of auto_ptr<class T>

[Panjandrum]

i want to show:

1). auto_ptr is not so safe.
2). given 1) is true, then it seems no much reason to use auto_ptr,
because we can use normal pointer safely, with care.

in this respect, auto_ptr does not have much obvious advantage over
normal pointer.

It also has many disadvantages and usability traps. And, most of all,
auto_ptr is not a pointer. Just an object that implements an
operator*() function.

 

[Victor Bazarov]

It also has many disadvantages and usability traps. And, most of all,
auto_ptr is not a pointer. Just an object that implements an
operator*() function.

.... and the operator->() function ... and very specific copying ...

 

[red floyd]

... and the operator->() function ... and very specific copying ...

I use auto_ptr quite often, and use it for for specific purposes.
If I could, I'd use a local object, but I'm creating from a factory for
polymorphic behaviour.

i.e.

class Base { ... };
Base* CreateMemberOfBaseFamily(const std:string&);

void f()
{
std::string s;


// read s from some input source


std::auto_ptr pBase(CreateMemberOfBaseFamily(s));
// do stuff with pBase here, that includes the
// possibility of exceptions!!!!

// I don't have to worry about deleting pBase here,
// and I don't have to worry about catching any
// and all exceptions, because pBase will be cleaned
// up automatically
}

 

[Steven T. Hatton]

http://www.kangaroologic.com/interfaces/libs/interfaces/doc/classes/unique_ptr.html
http://tinyurl.com/aat8r