Re: [boost] Re: cyclic ptr (was: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Proposals: p2m offsets, prebuild<>, squad_ptr<> (of course))

From: Greg Colvin (Gregory.Colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-05 09:30:43

It's been my intent to create a version of cyclic_ptr that
would be compatible with intrusive_ptr and shared_ptr, but
I haven't had time or motivation.  The weak_ptr companion to
cyclic_ptr has already been so integrated, so that I think
is where cyclic_ptr belongs.

At 07:09 AM 9/5/2002, Larry Evans wrote:
>Philippe A. Bouchard wrote:
>
>> 
>>
>>I'll start by adding a "forced" destruction member.  It will decrement the pointer, followed by a self-destruct placed_ptr call.  This way at least the programmer will be able to free his own cyclic container.
>>
>>... or maybe operator delete could be displaced for placed_ptr<> or other rc pointer types.  What do you think?
>I don't understand.  Could you provide examples?
>
>>
>>Other areas seems to be copyrighted and chances are we'll have to adapt it so it depends on their opinion mostly I guess.
>>
>> 
>I don't think that should stop you from adopting their ideas as long as you
>give prominent credit in the comments someplace.  You might also
>see if there is any boost conventions on this.  I don't know where they
>might be though, but you can always see what others have done.
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost