Re: [boost] Smart pointer status, directions, thoughts

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-05-25 09:34:00

At 09:16 AM 5/25/2001, Larry Evans wrote:

 >Your small/medium/large use comment is especially relevant since
 >the other two methods analyzed so far find the roots by exhaustively
 >searching the heap.   This is the main reason I suggested cyclic_ptr
 >would be better, although I haven't bothered yet to be more thorough
 >in the comparison.  I'm also thinking of raising the issue of why
 >Boehm's collector shouldn't be used.  The only reason I can think
 >of is the remote possiblity of misidentifying pointers.  This is the
 >point raised by others, but it's especially relevant because this
 >only becomes a problem with dense pointer graphs, which is the
 >very place where the other methods, I suspect, will grind to a crawl.
 >(Again, the last statement was made without any testing.  It's
 >just a first [or maybe 13th :)] impression.)

One point to keep in mind is the distinction between interface and 
implementation.

If the C++ committee were to standardize a smart pointer that could handle 
cycles, they would specify only interface (and preconditions, effects, and 
similar interface related items).  The implementors will howl if the 
interface specification forces a particular implementation.  The user 
advocates will howl if the interface appears hard to use, error prone, or 
doesn't have well defined behavior.  Various interests will howl if the 
interface seems to preclude efficient operations.

So you might want to look at the interface issues in that light.

--Beman