Menu
Is there a reason unique_ptr::reset doesn't have overloads that take a const deleter& and deleter&& to match its constructors that take those as a second argument?
The stored deleter in unique_ptr would be copy assigned or move assigned with the argument from reset. If the deleter is noncopyable or nonmovable, calling the corresponding overload of the reset wouldn't compile. This seems like it would be consistent behavior with the constructors.
942
An explicit delete for a unique_ptr would be reset() . But do remember that unique_ptr are there so that you don't have to manage directly the memory they hold. That is, you should know that a unique_ptr will safely delete its underlying raw pointer once it goes out of scope.
std::unique_ptr::resetDestroys the object currently managed by the unique_ptr (if any) and takes ownership of p. If p is a null pointer (such as a default-initialized pointer), the unique_ptr becomes empty, managing no object after the call.
Yes. Well the unique ptr has a function object that by default invokes delete on the pointed to object, which calls the destructor. You can change the type of that default deleter to do almost anything.
I thought about adding that but you can get the equivalent functionality with a move assignment operator:
ptr = unique_ptr<T, D>(new T(another_value), D(another_state)); So I opted for not saying the same thing with reset in the interest of keeping the API reasonably small.
Update
And I live and learn...
The syntax can actually be much simpler than what I show above:
ptr = {new T(another_value), D(another_state)}; If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With
