KnowledgeHub
Questions
Tags
Users
Search
Alex Rivera
|
Logout
Edit Question
Title
Body
std::unique_ptr<int> p1(new int); std::unique_ptr<int> p2(new int); p2=p1; It seems here that p1 is no longer "unique" since p2 refer to it also It is legal c++ ? Does unique_ptr have copy_semantics ? If no, and if it has only move semantics, is p1 set to NULL after assign it to p2 ? EDIT: ok so the correct version is p2=std::move(p1) According to that, after this assign, p1 is not valid ? And the difference with auto_ptr is here? it is more safe to explictly specfiy transfer of ownership than implicitly as it is the case with auto_ptr I guess
Tags (comma-separated)
Save Edits
Cancel