From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-12 20:11:00
At 06:30 PM 7/12/2001, Christian Thäter wrote:
>Sure i agree that there possible more efficient implementations.
>My point was not concerning the implementation. I want to focus on the
>semantic and if we agree on some semantic, then think about the best
>implemetation. Actually we have the simple and efficent std::auto_ptr
>it's ownership-transistion and boost::shared_ptr whith it's lossy
>(on reset/assign) semantic's.
>So the question is, "Is there a need for other semantics?", like:
>"Shall it ensure strict resource sharing which keeps track of
>reset/assign operations for all instances of a pointer?"
>"Shall pointer-construction have predictable timing behaviour?"
>"Shall pointer construction never throw?"
>I believe that future C++ needs more high-level support with no
>side-effect's in it's semantics, at least optional. Sure building smarter
>things often involves higher cost, but on the advantage of easier use of
>the components. So, I experimented the last days a bit with these
>pointers, learned alot about the important points, now I implement the
>linked_ptr and linked_array classes according to the boost/smart_ptr
>interfaces for my own use, if anyone is intrested i can send/post/upload
You really should read Andrei Alexandrescu's Modern C++ Design. He covers
a lot of the things you are interested in, and in a most informative way.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk