Re: shared_ptr comparison

From: Kevlin Henney (kevlin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-20 01:58:34

>   From: John Max Skaller <skaller_at_[hidden]>
[...]
>       I agree. My main contention is that
>
>       a) we should drop shared_array
>       b) we should use 
>
>               shared_ptr< array<T> >
>               shared_ptr< fixed_array<T,n> >
>
>instead of 
>
>               shared_ptr< T[] >
>               shared_ptr< T[n] >
[...]
>I.e.: I agree with removing shared_array and using shared_ptr,
>but suggest that instead of a specialisation, to use first class
>array types.

This seems to be a better idea in theory than in practice:

        shared_ptr< array<T> > p;
        ...
        (*p)[i] = ...;

Whereas a shared (or scoped) array that was specialised as such would
support operator[] directly. Adding operator[] to the general share_ptr
class would be a bad idea, reintroducing many of the fun and games that
the current separate interfaces prevent, when compared with raw arrays.

So, dropping the idea of a separate shared array implementation is not
really appropriate. It becomes a question of whether to support it as a
specialisation or as a separately named class template.

Kevlin
____________________________________________________________

  Kevlin Henney                   phone:  [phone]
  mailto:kevlin_at_[hidden]     mobile: [phone]
  http://www.curbralan.com        fax:    [phone]
  Curbralan: Consultancy + Training + Development + Review
____________________________________________________________