Path: utzoo!utgpu!news-server.csri.toronto.edu!cs.utexas.edu!uunet!microsoft!jimad
From: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Smart pointers and stupid people (was: garbage collection...)
Message-ID: <60313@microsoft.UUCP>
Date: 7 Jan 91 20:19:57 GMT
References: <1990Dec20.045909.7681@rice.edu> <CLINE.90Dec21171912@cheetah.ece.clarkson.edu> <3071@lupine.NCD.COM> <4114@osc.COM> <CIMSHOP!DAVIDM.90Dec28224114@uunet.UU.NET> <4120@osc.COM> <CIMSHOP!DAVIDM.91Jan2113026@uunet.UU.NET> <4127@osc.COM>
Reply-To: jimad@microsoft.UUCP (Jim ADCOCK)
Distribution: comp
Organization: Microsoft Corp., Redmond WA
Lines: 10

In article <4127@osc.COM> tma@osc.UUCP (Tim Atkins) writes:

|So I still have to take the position that without going into the compiler
|business and most likely losing some C compatibility, it is not possible to
|provide a fool-proof object movement scheme in C++.

I disagree with your position as stated.  One simple counter-example to 
your statement is to use the fool-proof object movement scheme of simply
not moving objects.  Simple, and fool-proof.  Other, less acedemic 
counter-examples are also possible.