[C++-sig] make_constructor issues

Ralf W. Grosse-Kunstleve rwgk at yahoo.com
Sat Jul 24 01:20:13 CEST 2004

--- Stefan Seefeld <sseefeld at art.ca> wrote:
> > To me it seems the best implementation of the factory should return
> > auto_ptr<Foo> or shared_ptr<Foo> in order to avoid a copy.
> But copy-construct it must anyways, simply because I chose to export
> the type as class_<Foo>, not class_<Foo, shared_ptr<Foo> > !?!

Probably, but the point is that the current make_constructor implementation
covers the general case. Is it really worth the complication of implementing
another make_constructor overload? As shown in one of my previous messages you
can very easily modify your original factory function to fit into the current

Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!

More information about the Cplusplus-sig mailing list