|From CP newsletter
The Myth of Smart Pointers – Logikal Blog[^]
Basically complaining about what unique_ptr<t> is defined as.
Myself reading it and looking at the code it seems to me that the author does not understand the difference between the C++ specification and the C++ compiler/runtime.
Which has always been a problem for some people using C/C++ pointers since C (before C++ existed.)
The author seems to be suggesting that the specification is guaranteeing that the memory will be collected. But without even reading the spec I seriously doubt it says that. I suspect it is noting that the it might be collected so one should not rely on it.
There are multiple other places where one can do similar things and it might or might not work depending on compiler, binary and even execution flow (which is really fun to debug.)
Perhaps I am mistaken in what I am reading?