Should I assign or reset a unique_ptr?

Given the common situation where the lifespan of an owned object is linked to its owner, I can use a unique pointer one of 2 ways . .

It can be assigned:

class owner
{
    std::unique_ptr<someObject> owned;    
public:
    owner()
    {
        owned=std::unique_ptr<someObject>(new someObject());        
    }
};

The reset method can be utilised:

class owner
{
    std::unique_ptr<someObject> owned;    
public:
    owner()
    {
        owned.reset(new someObject());
    }
};

In the interests of best practice, should I prefer one form over the other?

EDIT: Sorry folks. I over simplified this. The heap allocation occurs in an initialise method and not in the ctor. Therefore, I cannot use initialiser lists.

From the docs of unique_ptr's operator=:

> Transfers ownership of the object pointed to by r to *this as if by calling reset(r.release()) followed by an assignment from std::forward<E>(r.get_deleter()).

And all you need of that is the reset call, so it's simpler to just call it directly

The proper way to do this (that you didn't list) is to use the constructor of owned:

owner() : owned(new someObject())
{}

Apart from that I'd prefer reset as you don't create a useless intermediate instance in that case (even though there might be no difference on the machine level as the optimizer can do a lot there).