Re: [boost] shared_ptr deleter introspection?

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-11-21 08:58:56

Peter,

Can I infer anything about your intentions from your questions below?
Is there any chance of getting public-interface deleter introspection?

just-trying-to-plan-ly y'rs,
Dave

David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
>
>> From: "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]>
>>
>> [get_deleter]
>>
>>> I think that considering the alternatives require:
>>>
>>>    1. Periodic map sweeps (we might as well be doing GC ;->), or
>>>
>>>    2. Solving the constructor forwarding problem for tacking on
>>>       additional data to the pointed-to class
>>>
>>> IMO it's worth giving serious consideration to deleter
>>> introspection.
>>
>> Looks like I have to apply my mad "diligent reader" skills to the above.
>>
>   <snip>
>>
>> Correct?
>
> Yep, you got mad skills.
>
>> Now the interface questions.
>>
>> Q: Why a free function? A: a member would require the p.template
>> get_deleter<D>() syntax when p is dependent on a template parameter.
>
> That's one answer.  There's also p.get_deleter(type<D>). Either one is
> slightly ugly. But mostly I suggested a free function because it was
> what came to mind.
>
>> Q: Why use a generic 'get_deleter' name for the free function? A: ???
>
> Heh. I suggest that it /not/ be intended for invocation via Koenig
> Lookup, so the name would be OK.
>
> There is another option, of course: make it a class template, like
> boost::python::extract. Since introspection is a two-phase process
> anyway, maybe that's better.
>
> -- 
>                        David Abrahams
>    dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
> Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution

-- 
                       David Abrahams
   dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution