Re: The joy (?) of C++98 argument forwarding

Consider ...

<code>
// Copyright (c) Alf P. Steinbach, 2010.
#include "_config.h"

#include <progrock/cppx/pointers/Shared.h>
#include <iostream>

namespace {
using namespace progrock;

cppx::Size count = 0;

class Foo
{
protected:
~Foo()
{
using namespace std;
--count;
cout << "Foo destroyed" << endl;
}

public:
Foo()
{
using namespace std;
cout << "Foo constructed" << endl;
++count;
}

Foo( int x )
{
using namespace std;
cout << "Foo constructed with arg " << x << endl;
++count;
}

Foo( int x, char const s[] )
{
using namespace std;
cout << "Foo constructed with args " << x << " and \"" << s << "\"" <<
endl;
++count;
}
};

void test()
{
using namespace cppx;

Shared< Foo > r1 = newObject();
assert( count == 1 );

Shared< Foo > r2( r1 );
assert( count == 1 );

Shared< Foo > r3( newObject(), args( 42 ) );
assert( count == 2 );

Shared< Foo > r4( newObject(), args( 42, "blah blah" ) );
assert( count == 3 );

r4 = r2;
assert( count == 2 );

r3 = r2;
assert( count == 1 );

r3 = r3;
assert( count == 1 );
}
}; // namespace anon

void testShared()
{
test();
assert( count == 0 );
}
</code>

Is the notation in the 'test' routine OK, or would it be better (in
some sense) with some macro, e.g. like

Shared< Foo > r( CPPX_NEW_SHARED( 42, "blah blah" ) );

?