Is this valid and moral C++?

[Filimon Roukoutakis]

Suppose that we have a function

f(Object*& obj)

and have declared a global std::vector<Obj ect*vec;

Is it valid to do

void g() {
vec.push_back(n ew Object);
f(vec.back());
}

ie does f() internally actually have read/write access to the Object
allocated in g() on the heap? If not, what would be the trick to achieve
this? Thanks,

filimon

[Richard Herring]

In message <eu**********@c ernne03.cern.ch >, Filimon Roukoutakis
<fi*****@phys.u oa.grwrites

>Jim Langston wrote:

[...]

> std::vector<som eclass*is usually bad design unless you are working
with polymorphism. Even then some would say use a smart pointer
(although I use naked pointers myself).

I am working with polymorphism. At some point I was reading strong
statements about not using std::smart_ptr with std::containers . Did I
misunderstan d?

There's no such animal as std::smart_ptr, so the question is what kind
of pointer they really meant. Probably they meant that you can't have
std::containers of std::auto_ptr, because it doesn't model normal copy
semantics.

--
Richard Herring