Re: uncounted_ptr

From: Larry Evans (jcampbell3_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-09 22:35:34

--- In boost_at_[hidden], "William Kempf" <sirwillard_at_m...> wrote:
> --- In boost_at_[hidden], "David Abrahams" <abrahams_at_m...> wrote:
> > Not to my knowledge. Why would you want something like that? 
> Doesn't a raw
> > pointer work just fine?
> 
> The main difference is that raw pointers will lead to "dangling 
> pointer" problems that won't occur with "weak smart pointers".  I've 
> never had to deal with this situation (I've avoided smart pointers
in 
> cases with circular references) so I can't tell you how bad the raw 
> pointer approach is or how good the weak smart pointer approach is, 
> but the reasoning was well presented in the posted article.
> 
> Bill Kempf

The testdriver code and output from solutions to both the circular
reference-counted pointer problem and to dangling references can be
found from the home following page:

  http://sites.netscape.net/cppljevansusa/homepage

I've noticed there's some work being done in boost in this
area (http://www.egroups.com/files/boost/circ_ptr.zip).  I
think I could contribute here, and I'm finishing up html file
describing the solution.  Email me if your interested in
getting a copy when I'm done, or maybe I should just submit it
for review by boost?