On 7 June 2010 13:26, Felipe Magno de Almeida <felipe.m.almeida@gmail.com> wrote:

On Mon, Jun 7, 2010 at 7:17 AM, Igor R <boost.lists@gmail.com> wrote:
>> You would destroy the socket. Delete'ing it,
>
> So it would be always necessary to store a ptr to a socket? Then
> delete the socket, which was passed by reference to async_read()?
> Doesn't sound good, does it?

I see. You would call cancel first. Unfortunately cancelling is not
very reliable. But cancelling is what is conceptually right here IMHO.

>> or using a boost::optional.
>
> But it's not optional, according to its semantics...

It seems to me. If you call close you want the socket released. That a
zombie socket remains is a design problem. Zombie objects should be
avoided.
I don't think it can be implementable without unnecessary overhead though.

Regards,
--
Felipe Magno de Almeida
_______________________________________________

Boost-users mailing list
Boost-users@lists.boost.org
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users