From: Alisdair Meredith (alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-14 06:36:14
Peter Dimov wrote:
> > And what if you use the deallocator as a template parameter?
> > Anyway: Do you know any smart-pointer class, which supports custom
> > deallocator and can transfer ownership? (auto_ptr does not support
> > custom deallocator and either smart_ptr or shared_ptr does not support
> > release() method).
> Both good questions. Do we have an answer?
These both sound like questions to be solved by the policy-pointer David
Held is formalising as we speak [based strongly on Andrei Alexandrescu's
smart_pointer class in the Loki library/Modern C++ Design book]
I would be worried to see extra template parameters appearing in
shared_pointer, as the big advantage it overs over the full-blown policy
implemetation is its simplicity to the user.
If that simplicity is no longer enough, then maybe you do need the full
policy implementation. I too worry a little about increasing the size
of my pointers with an unused deallocator, but nothing in my profiling
has suggested this is a real problem in practice, simply an
implementation detail I am concerned about because I know it is there.
This is one of the trade-offs of trying to use a general-purpose
Well, that's my take on it anyway <g>
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk