unique_ptr<T> does not allow copy construction, instead it supports move semantics. Yet, I can return a unique_ptr<T> from a function and assign the returned value to a variable.
If my class SomeType has a method that returns a element from the map (using the key) say std::unique_ptr<OtherType> get_othertype(std::string name)
What is wrong with this program? #include <memory> #include <vector> int main() { std::vector<std::unique_ptr<int>> vec;
I\'ve recently started using Boost.Asio in a project and would li开发者_如何学Cke to know whether anyone knows a clean solution to transfer ownership of a newly created socket to tcp::acceptor::async_
Is there some equivalent class for C++1x\'s std::unique_ptr in the boost libraries? The behavior I\'m looking for is being able to have an exception-safe factory function, like so...
I am confused with unique_ptr and rvalue move philosophy. Let\'s say we have two collections: std::vector<std::auto_ptr<int>> autoCollection;
#include <vector> #include <memory> using namespace std; class A { public: A(): i(new int) {} A(A const& a) = delete;
Will auto_ptr be deprecated in incoming C++ standard? Should unique_ptr be used for ownership transfer instead of shared_ptr?
I have a class containing a std::unique_ptr<> and I want to put instances of this class inside of an std::map<>. I thought one of the things that motivated the introduction of move semanti
加载中,请稍侯......