From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-01-14 10:35:36
At 03:11 PM 1/13/00 -0800, Boris Fomitchev wrote:
>"greg colvin" <gcolvi-_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> > * Since the smart point goes in an iterator, it would be better
>> > avoid the size and separate allocation penalty of shared_ptr.
>> > * Memory allocation should use the container's Allocator.
>> > * The smart pointer needs to support construction from a raw
>> > when other smart pointers to the same object are known to exist,
>> > are not available. This means there needs to be a constructor
>> > increments the reference count rather than just setting it to 1.
>I do believe that, for this purpose, "reference body technique"
>than invasiveness as long as you control allocation (please see
> http://www.boost.org/more/count_bdy.htm for details).
Good point. I had actually reread Kevlin's
http://www.boost.org/more/count_bdy.htm paper recently, but for the
B-tree requirements it seemed to me to be excess complexity. Ditto
Greg's weak_ptr<>. So I will just do something specific for the
B-tree implementation; when boost gets some kind of a smart pointer
which meets the requirements it will be easy enough to switch to that
new smart pointer.
Thanks for all the comments,
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk