Boost logo

Boost :

From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-08-29 19:41:57

From: Valentin Bonnard <Bonnard.V_at_[hidden]>
> Thomas Matelich wrote:
> > <whine> I wanna inherit shared_ptr </whine>
> >
> > Anyway, here's my situation, I'm writing a library for a simple plugin
> > architecture. Objects can be created from classes in dynamic libraries
> > dynamically. I want those objects to be shared_ptrs and be able to
> > construct themselves.
> I don't understand.
> > I think this qualifies as an isa relationship.
> > In general, their only purpose is to be used like a shared_ptr.
> >
> > So, is shared_ptr always going to use private for share and have no
> > virtual destructor,
> Please explain why you think it should expose its implementation
> details and why it should have a virtual destructor.
> > or is this matter up for discussion?
> We can discuss it, but I think I know the outcome.

I wouldn't be so sure.

We've been considering an improvement to shared_ptr to
add template constructors parameterized on a function
or functor that does the deletion. We can arrange it
so that type of shared_ptr(T*) is the same as the type
of shared_ptr(T*,deleter), which might provide for the
sort of polymorphism Thomas wants. I'll take this
thread as motivation to write the idea up in more

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