From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-08-27 09:36:18
From: "Douglas Gregor" <gregod_at_[hidden]>
> > Also, get_pointer for weak_ptr was deliberately omitted as dangerous.
> > do you need it?
> void bar(weak_ptr<X> x)
> some_signal.connect(bind(&X::foo, x));
> We need to get to the X* for the base-pointer conversion to trackable*
> the automatic signal/slot disconnections).
But that's exactly why I didn't add get_pointer for weak_ptr. bind(&X::foo,
x) is only valid when get_pointer is present; but there is no reason to bind
a member function to a weak pointer, because you can't detect from within
the member function whether "this" is zero (meaning that the weak pointer
has been zeroed.)
> I guess it wouldn't be terribly
> horrible if the Signals library just relied on forward declarations and
> .get() to elimate the dependencies and not introduce the dependency on
> type_traits/ice.hpp, if that would be preferable.
Relying on get_pointer is OK (once we get the weak_ptr situation sorted
out), but I'd like to keep the smart pointer headers as dependency free as
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk