Re: [boost] smart_ptr changes

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-22 08:46:27

At 09:37 PM 10/18/01 -0700, Darin Adler wrote:
 >on 10/18/01 7:08 PM, David Abrahams at david.abrahams_at_[hidden] wrote:
 >
 >> IMO it's not even a question of self-assignment. I would prefer to 
detect
 >> calls to "reset" on a pointer that is already managed by another smart
 >> pointer whenever possible, by asserting.
 >
 >I agree that's highly desirable. But it seems to point in a different
 >direction from the existing feature.
 >
 >The feature in reset() now gives predictable behavior when doing a reset 
to
 >the same pointer twice. It doesn't prohibit it. I just wanted to point 
out
 >that Peter's revision of smart_ptr removes this feature.
 >
 >Changing the existing check to an assert, simple or sophisticated, that
 >makes this illegal would be OK for me, but maybe not for others.

I'd also support adding adding such a precondition, with an assert().

--Beman