4 ms·
Right, if the discussion isn't going your way you can always side track by making up faults and projecting agendas. How is this helping us go anywhere worth go
by sifoobar 8y ago
Right, if the discussion isn't going your way you can always side track by making up faults and projecting agendas.
How is this helping us go anywhere worth going?
I was talking about std::shared_ptr, which is the closest thing to reference counting that STL offers.
- derefr 8y agoI think the GP was accusing you of "side tracking" by bringing up std::shared_ptr in the first place. My post above was about how C++ smart-pointers compare favorably to Rust's oft-considered-"unique" ownership/borrowing system. The particular STL features that cause equivalent "compile-time magic" to happen to what you get from Rust's semantics, are those of std::uniq_ptr and std::move, not those of std::shared_ptr. So the value (or lack thereof) of std::shared_ptr, isn't really a knock against the value of the C++ STL smart-pointers collection as a whole—you can entirely ignore the existence of std::shared_ptr (I do!) and still think C++ STL smart-pointers are the cat's pyjamas.