• dan (3/3) Dec 11 2003 that none of the other compilers cought... like feeding a const ref to a...
• Matthew Wilson (2/4) Dec 12 2003 Can you be specific? There are several different (aged) auto_ptr
• dan (7/11) Dec 12 2003 Well, maybe I'm missing something, but my understanding is that auto_ptr...
• Matthew Wilson (7/21) Dec 12 2003 It's legal to delete something that is const.
• dan (5/7) Dec 12 2003 Doh! I think I'd heard this before, but it totally left my mind without...

dan <dan_member pathlink.com> writes:

that none of the other compilers cought... like feeding a const ref to an
auto_ptr... figures!

Next step, regression tests...

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

 that none of the other compilers cought... like feeding a const ref to an
 auto_ptr... figures!

Can you be specific? There are several different (aged) auto_ptr
implementations, so it may not be the case that the others are in error

dan <dan_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <brdlju$13fn$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
 that none of the other compilers cought... like feeding a const ref to an
 auto_ptr... figures!

Can you be specific? There are several different (aged) auto_ptr
implementations, so it may not be the case that the others are in error

Well, maybe I'm missing something, but my understanding is that auto_ptr must be
able to delete the object that it manages. If so, it couldn't take a const ref,
unless it then casts away the constness in order to delete it.
But your very asking this makes me suspect that indeed I must be missing
something...

dan

"Matthew Wilson" <matthew.hat stlsoft.dot.org> writes:

It's legal to delete something that is const.

Deletion is not class as modifying it. <G>

"dan" <dan_member pathlink.com> wrote in message
news:brdp3n$18p0$1 digitaldaemon.com...
 In article <brdlju$13fn$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
 that none of the other compilers cought... like feeding a const ref to



an
 auto_ptr... figures!

Can you be specific? There are several different (aged) auto_ptr
implementations, so it may not be the case that the others are in error

 Well, maybe I'm missing something, but my understanding is that auto_ptr

must be
 able to delete the object that it manages. If so, it couldn't take a const

ref,
 unless it then casts away the constness in order to delete it.
 But your very asking this makes me suspect that indeed I must be missing
 something...

 dan

dan <dan_member pathlink.com> writes:

In article <brdupq$1ml2$1 digitaldaemon.com>, Matthew Wilson says...
It's legal to delete something that is const.

Deletion is not class as modifying it. <G>


Doh!  I think I'd heard this before, but it totally left my mind without a
trace; thank you!

Okay Walter, I must retract my earlier retraction, but the kudos stay .. ;)

dan