std::unique_ptr<int> p1(new int);
std::unique_ptr<int> p2(new int);
It seems here that p1 is no longer "unique" since p2 refer to it also
It is legal c++ ?
Does unique_ptr have copy_semantics ?
If no, and if it has only move semantics, is p1 set to NULL after assign it to p2 ?
ok so the correct version is
According to that, after this assign, p1 is not valid ? And the difference with auto_ptr is here? it is more safe to explictly specfiy transfer of ownership than implicitly as it is the case with auto_ptr I guess