From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-02 06:03:32
"David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> If eating the cake means "not having to support unmanaged adoption",
>> I don't think so ;-)
> Well, I meant support both, of course. How hard would it be to create
> the generic managed c'tor?
>> > For default storage, this is a no-throw operation. Let's say we're
>> > moving p into a counted pointer. Now ownership has to allocate
>> > a count, and might throw in the process. If it does, we either have
>> > to clean up p, or we have to stuff the toothpaste back into the
>> > tube.
>> Both highly imprecise notions; I don't know what either means for sure
>> in this context.
> Substitute 'p' for 'p's resource', and maybe it will make more sense.
- by "clean up" you mean "delete?"
- by "stuff stuff the toothpaste back..." you mean "move p back into
the source pointer?"
>> > I see that shared_ptr solves this by violating RAII.
>> I don't know what this means either. RAII is not something you can
>> "violate". It's a technique or idiom.
> By "violate RAII", I mean, use default construction with a try-catch
> block rather than the initializer list. The "RAII philosophy" that you've
> been preaching for the last week is that you almost never need a catch
> block if you use RAII properly.
I don't think I ever said that. It's usually true, and it's good that
you noticed, though.
-- David Abrahams dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk