|
Boost : |
From: Philippe A. Bouchard (philippeb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-20 20:11:54
Hi people,
I have made some decisions upon shifted_ptr. I am going to finish
documenting by the end of the week because I am sure at 100% it will be ok:
- I am going to remove ownership;
- I am going to use counted_base instead if shifted_header::count for easier
shared_ptr<> casts;
- I have found an acceptable keyword to replace the "new" paradox:
"record<T>(...)"... the antonym of "delete";
- I am not going to implement the extra counter to "indicator" nodes (for
those who know what I am talking about) because I do not have enough
ressources to distinguish heap / stack variables in a standard way.
So the smart pointers will look like the following:
shared_ptr<int> p = new int(9);
shifted_ptr<int> q = record<int>(9);
p(q); // Ok
q(p); // You decide whether it is worth the complexity of its implementation
Please note that I didn't wanted to use "make" or "create" because those are
used too much frequently as for the "new" paradox.
Philippe
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk