Re: Smart pointer status, directions, thoughts

From: williamkempf_at_[hidden]
Date: 2001-05-24 15:23:28

--- In boost_at_y..., "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_m...> wrote:
> From: <williamkempf_at_h...>
> 
> > --- In boost_at_y..., "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_m...> wrote:
> 
> > > No, it's never valid to have less<type> but not operator<. The 
only
> > > exception is for pointers that don't point into the same array.
> >
> > A)  That's the case here.
> > B)  Never with an exception?  Good rules don't work this way.
> 
> We're stuck with the exception for other reasons but don't have to 
introduce
> another.
> 
> > C)  There are plenty of other cases where this holds true.  A 
classic
> > example is std::type_info.  Basically any type that doesn't not 
have
> > full ordering but *can* have consistent partial ordering.
> 
> But std::type_info is totally ordered. :-)

I used the wrong terminology here.  I should have said strict-weak 
ordered.  The point still stands.

> > > shared_ptr is a bit different from a raw pointer. It reperesents
> > shared
> > > ownership. I ask the legitimate question "do pa and pb share
> > ownership?"
> >
> > I don't agree with this, but for some I guess it might be a valid
> > view point.  *IF* there's a compelling enough reason to need this
> > however, it's still wrong to expose pn.  Instead a same() method 
(or
> > other more suitable name) should be exposed.
> 
> Did you read the example in my original message?

Yes, I did.

Bill Kempf