Re: Loki SmartPtr questions

From: rogeeff (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-14 11:06:45

--- In boost_at_y..., "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_m...> wrote:
> From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_h...>
> > The proof is in the pudding, but I'll try to reply in short below.
> >
> > > 1. Why the separate Storage and Ownership policies?
> >
> > They are orthogonal for the most part. For example, there is no 
link
> between
> > the fact that you allocate a pointer with new and the fact that 
you
> > reference count it. Same pointer allocated with new you also may 
want to
> > reference link (maintain a linked list between all pointers to 
the same
> > object) or simply treat it as an auto_ptr. As far as the 
ownership policy
> is
> > concerned, the managed resource can be allocated anyhow and can 
actually
> not
> > be a pointer at all.
> 
> So, the Storage policy says how is the resource (de)allocated, and 
the
> Ownership policy says how is it... what? Copied?
> 

Ideally Storage Policy manages HOW to allocate/deallocate resource, 
while Ownership policy manages WHEN to do so.

If we will stick to this definition, we will never need to 
interpolicy (Storage-Ownership at least) communication.

[...]

> --
> Peter Dimov
> Multi Media Ltd.

Gennadiy.