Boost logo

Boost :

From: Kevin Atkinson (kevinatk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-03-23 20:31:20

On Thu, 23 Mar 2000, Beman Dawes wrote:

> At 11:41 PM 3/22/00 -0500, Kevin Atkinson wrote:
> >What is the consensus of my CopyPtr and ClonePtr idea?
> They are neat. They supply several interesting and useful features.
> Deep/clone copy semantics complements other smart pointers which
> supply shallow copy or no copy semantics.
> The two header approach, with resulting relaxed requirement on T
> allowing use with incomplete types, looks like it may be more widely
> useful.

Some pointers people seam to be missing.

Making smart pointers more generic my taking in the necessary
copy/assign/delete functions as a parameters. This will avoid the need to
have a separate smart pointer for arrays and also allow them to be used
with libraries well a special function has to be called to free a pointer
as is command with most C libraries.

My ClonePtr which unlike the Copy pointer doesn't REALLY need the two
header approach because most of the time the Abstract Base Classes (ABC) is
visible. I find the clone pointers extrema useful as it makes using ABC
a lot safer as with the ClonePtr you can _almost_ treat them as if
there were the actual class (ie not a pointer) and thus many times avoid
the need for light weight wrapper classes for ABC which alloys one to treat an
ABC as an actual object.

Kevin Atkinson

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at