From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-23 16:04:34
"Philippe A. Bouchard" <philippeb_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Sorry I wasn't specific enough. What I meant is: does the object pointed
> needs to be properly wrapped using policy-based smart pointers (what are
> they anyways?)?
Read Modern C++ Design, by Andrei Alexandrescu. ;)
> It's a widget with a disabled copy contructor. The original constructor
> is important and cannot be wrapped. You cannot also just rewrite it to
> make it derive from counted_base. The only option left is a separate
> reference counter thus efficienty is dropping right now. QListViewItem
> is another class with important constructor*s*.
Well, like Peter points out, you could wrap the entire interface (not my
first choice). Or, you could use the "hideously inefficient" external
The real question is whether the pointer-to-count, which I'm sure is what
you object to, is that expensive. For entire listviews, it surely is not.
thousands of listview items, it may be a consideration. I myself am a
big fan of the listview, and I have no qualms about filling one up with
thousands of items. However, my typical listview record is maybe
80-120 bytes long. I'm quite sure I wouldn't notice the loss of another 4
bytes to a count pointer. However, one wonders why one would use a
smart pointer to a listview record. I store listview data in an STL
container, and take iterators into it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk