From: David Abrahams <dave@boost-consulting.com>
Subject: `W w' (gnus-article-fill-cited-article)
Date: Sun, 16 Feb 2003 08:37:34 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <u7kc073dt.fsf@boost-consulting.com> (raw)
I've been noticing some inconvenient behavior from the wrap-washing
function of the subject line. I applied it to a message containing:
>> Like you Peter, I've been trying to explore the use cases of
>> move_ptr/scoped_ptr. In my own code I use these types of smart
>> pointers only in a scope where under non-exceptional conditions the
>> smart pointer is moved from (release'd) to client code. Only under
>> exceptional conditions does the scoped_ptr actually delete anything.
>> In this context, client code must know exactly how the resource is
>> allocated and deallocated.
>
> True enough, and the primary use of auto_ptr/move_ptr is to return
> things
> from a factory function when the client needs to know exactly how the
> resource has been allocated. That's why I think that an enhanced
> scoped/move/auto_ptr needs its deallocator encoded in the type as a
> template
> parameter, so that the client knows what resource management scheme
> they are
> dealing with.
And what I got out was:
>> Like you Peter, I've been trying to explore the use cases of
>> move_ptr/scoped_ptr. In my own code I use these types of smart
>> pointers only in a scope where under non-exceptional conditions the
>> smart pointer is moved from (release'd) to client code. Only under
>> exceptional conditions does the scoped_ptr actually delete
>> anything. In this context, client code must know exactly how the
>> resource is allocated and deallocated.
> True enough, and the primary use of auto_ptr/move_ptr is to return
> things from a factory function when the client needs to know exactly
> how the resource has been allocated. That's why I think that an
> enhanced scoped/move/auto_ptr needs its deallocator encoded in the
> type as a template parameter, so that the client knows what resource
> management scheme they are dealing with.
In other words, the blank line between the two separate quotations
disappeared. Is there a way to prevent this from happening?
--
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com
next reply other threads:[~2003-02-16 13:37 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-02-16 13:37 David Abrahams [this message]
2003-02-22 21:56 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
2003-02-23 17:55 ` David Abrahams
2003-02-24 21:47 ` Lars Magne Ingebrigtsen
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=u7kc073dt.fsf@boost-consulting.com \
--to=dave@boost-consulting.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).