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
> 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:
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?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk