[boost] Re: shifted_ptr review

From: Philippe A. Bouchard (philippeb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-01 00:08:19

David Abrahams wrote:

[...]

> So, despite that you said "no", the answer is "yes, it still exposes
> an unmanaged raw pointer" AFAICT.
>
> There are other reasons not to do that, for example exception safety.

Sorry.

The placement operator new should be revised in the standards eventually.
Placement operator new should also return a some information about the
operator from which it was allocated from.  As I understand it is the same
problem with shared_ptr.

Would you prefer:
- new1<T> & new2<T> (for shared_ptr objects & shifted_ptr objects) or;
- make_shared_ptr<T> & make_shifted_ptr<T>.

The latest is obviously more descriptive.

Philippe