On 28/06/2016, Radoslaw Zarzynski wrote:
[snip]
> The owning semantic has been taken from std::unique_ptr.
[snip]
Since moving or copying the static_ptr is the same as moving or
copying the stored object, I think that should be the guideline.
>
The least surprising way to implement things would be:
(1) static_ptr<T> is copyable if T is copyable. It is movable if T is
movable. It is nothrow-copyable if T is nothrow-copyable. It is
nothrow-movable if T is nothrow-movable.
(2) If S is derived from T, but T is copyable and S is not, attempts
to store S in static_ptr<T> should fail. Same for move. If T is
nothrow-copyable or nothrow-movable and S is not, storing S in T
should fail.
That way code written using static_ptr<T> won't have its expectations
or exception safety change out from under it.
--
Senior Software Engineer Red Hat Storage, Ann Arbor, MI, US
IRC: Aemerson@{RedHat, OFTC, Freenode}
0x80F7544B90EDBFB9 E707 86BA 0C1B 62CC 152C 7C12 80F7 544B 90ED BFB9
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
