Re: [boost] On ownership policies and boost::raw_ptr

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-27 09:56:21

Maybe you should give a little context for your remarks. This #import<> is
a .NET thing, right?

-Dave

----- Original Message -----
From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaks_at_[hidden]>
To: <boost_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 8:05 AM
Subject: RE: [boost] On ownership policies and boost::raw_ptr

> I've had problems with the #import<> generated files defining operator&
for all their smart pointers.  These, in turn, release the smart pointer.
This causes problems with stl containers, at least in stlport, but I
suppose it might be a more generic problem across other stl
implementations.
>
> Anyway, the point is, #import auto-generates operator& and you have no
control over this.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Peter Dimov [mailto:pdimov_at_[hidden]]
> > Sent: Thursday, June 27, 2002 12:22 PM
> > To: boost_at_[hidden]
> > Subject: Re: [boost] On ownership policies and boost::raw_ptr
> >
> >
> > From: "Joe Gottman" <jgottman_at_[hidden]>
> > > >
> > > > And I still like &*p better than p.get() or mumble_ptr(p).
> > > >
> > >
> > >    I don't.  &*p has two disadvantages.  The major one is that it is
> > > undefined if p.get() happens to be null.  Also, it fails if
> > the class that
> > p
> > > points to has operator& overloaded.
> >
> > Programmers who overload unary operator& should be sentenced
> > to writing
> > libraries that need to operate properly when fed such classes.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Unsubscribe & other changes:
> > http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
> >
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>