How to declare std::unique_ptr and what is the use of it?

Question

I try to understand how std::unique_ptr works and for that I found this document. The author starts from the following example:

#include <utility>  //declarations of unique_ptr
using std::unique_ptr;
// default construction
unique_ptr<int> up; //creates an empty object
// initialize with an argument
unique_ptr<int> uptr (new int(3));
double *pd= new double;
unique_ptr<double> uptr2 (pd);
// overloaded * and ->
*uptr2 = 23.5;
unique_ptr<std::string> ups (new std::string("hello"));
int len=ups->size();

What is confusing to me is that in this line

unique_ptr<int> uptr (new int(3));

We use integer as an argument (between round brackets) and here

unique_ptr<double> uptr2 (pd);

we used an pointer as an argument. Does it make any difference?

What is also not clear to me, is how pointers, declared in this way will be different from the pointers declared in a "normal" way.

Answer 1

The constructor of unique_ptr<T> accepts a raw pointer to an object of type T (so, it accepts a T*).

In the first example:

unique_ptr<int> uptr (new int(3));

The pointer is the result of a new expression, while in the second example:

unique_ptr<double> uptr2 (pd);

The pointer is stored in the pd variable.

Conceptually, nothing changes (you are constructing a unique_ptr from a raw pointer), but the second approach is potentially more dangerous, since it would allow you, for instance, to do:

unique_ptr<double> uptr2 (pd);
// ...
unique_ptr<double> uptr3 (pd);

Thus having two unique pointers that effectively encapsulate the same object (thus violating the semantics of a unique pointer).

This is why the first form for creating a unique pointer is better, when possible. Notice, that in C++14 we will be able to do:

unique_ptr<int> p = make_unique<int>(42);

Which is both clearer and safer. Now concerning this doubt of yours:

What is also not clear to me, is how pointers, declared in this way will be different from the pointers declared in a "normal" way.

Smart pointers are supposed to model object ownership, and automatically take care of destroying the pointed object when the last (smart, owning) pointer to that object falls out of scope.

This way you do not have to remember doing delete on objects allocated dynamically - the destructor of the smart pointer will do that for you - nor to worry about whether you won't dereference a (dangling) pointer to an object that has been destroyed already:

{
    unique_ptr<int> p = make_unique<int>(42);
    // Going out of scope...
}
// I did not leak my integer here! The destructor of unique_ptr called delete

Now unique_ptr is a smart pointer that models unique ownership, meaning that at any time in your program there shall be only one (owning) pointer to the pointed object - that's why unique_ptr is non-copyable.

As long as you use smart pointers in a way that does not break the implicit contract they require you to comply with, you will have the guarantee that no memory will be leaked, and the proper ownership policy for your object will be enforced. Raw pointers do not give you this guarantee.