From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (alexy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-08 10:51:17
Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
> Let me repeat this:
> SmartPtr does support arrays.
Not in the sense how boost::scoped_array and boost::shared_array support
> There's /no/ need whatsoever to define a new class ArraySmartPtr. What
> SmartPtr consciously decided not to support, as thoroughly
> explained on page 183 of MC++D, is the indexing operator
> and pointer arithmetic. What's next?
> Iterators inside a SmartPtr to array?
There is no need to exaggerate here. Subscripting is an essential part of
the current interface of the boost array pointers (which, by the way, have a
much lager user base than Loki::SmartPtr), and any generative library that
is claimed to be able to replace the need for hand-crafted smart pointers
should be able to provide that part of the interface. That's what Beman is
trying to do.
> It can go forever.
> Supporting full-fledged arrays and pointer arithmetic could
> be done in one of two ways:
> 1) Add a new policy.
> 2) Implement it in a StoragePolicy that might wrap another
> Storage policy.
> Both options are accessible to the existing design. I chose
> to not use an extra policy. Smart pointers to arrays are sometimes
> needed, but when they are, you don't really want full-blown array
> with iteration and bounds checking and whatnot. You want a
Right! Something that can be a drop-in replacement for char* buf = new
char[n], with all the benefits of automated resource management.
> and you're better off with simply calling
> GetImpl(sp)[index] to index into the array.
Huh? So, basically, you are saying that when one replace a pair
char* buf = new char[n];
LokiScopedArray<char>::type buf(new char[n]);
she should also went through all the lines in between and replace buf[i] to
GetImpl(buf)[i], just because you decided that having an array notation is
an unnecessary luxury? I would say that such attitude is unlikely to attract
too many users for your library.
> I think this is acceptable. Do you agree?
> SmartPtr supports all the Boost smart pointers.
I believe that's what we are trying to confirm. So far there've been some
issues, like the above.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk