>>>>> "Hyrum K. Wright" <hyrum_wri...@mail.utexas.edu>:
> I don't want the caller to have to depend upon the lifetime of the > source object, hence the desire to return something by value or a > newly allocated pointer. > Additionally, it still wouldn't work, since references have to point > to some object, hence there is no such thing as a "null reference". Well... this might actually be a use for auto_ptr<string>. If you return auto_ptr<string> you force the caller to assign it to an auto_ptr<string> (ie. something that will clean up after itself when it goes out of scope). This assignment would assign ownership to the string from the return-by-value'd auto_ptr<string> to the variable you assign it to. If you fail to assign, the returned auto_ptr should go out of scope, and delete the string it returns to. That is... if auto_ptr<string> can hold NULL values. I don't know if it can (I think it can, but I've never used it, so I don't know). Yep, looks like it does. See eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auto_ptr (example program with assignment a bit down). > (This entire conversation is reminding my why I *hate* C++. To bad > there isn't too much of an alternative here... :/) (I saw a review once for Scott Meyers' "Effective C++", where the reviewer said something like "Scott Meyers shows that he has a thorugh grasp of C++. It can be debated whether having a through grasp of C++ is a good thing or not...". :-) (btw if you have to work in C++ then that particular book, is essential reading))
