[boost] Re: Formal Review request: Pointer Container Library

From: Nicolas Fleury (nidoizo_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-24 12:50:15

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:
> Feedback is welcome.

I just want to tell you that I am very interested in your library. 
Right now, when I want a container to have ownership of pointers, I 
basically have the choice between complicate the usage (not that much 
but still) and handle the ownership by hand, which can be error-prone, 
particularly if code deleting elements is added.  I usually choose to 
store shared_ptrs, but it complicates for nothing the creation of all 
added elements in context when the elements are not actually *shared*. 
Your solution would be something very simple to explain to my collegues 
and adds no burden to creation of elements.  If it is someday in Boost, 
I would use it right away.

I think the const-copy semantic of elements in STL containers is 
basically forcing to use shared_ptrs even when elements are not shared, 
so I think your solution of having equivalent containers for pointers is 
the good solution.

Like others pointed, I think you example could be more convincing.  You 
should show how it simplifies everything in day-to-day work with 
basically all operations.

About ptr_map, I wonder if a map with the key a pointer should be 
provided (and another with both key and value pointers).  Same thing for 
multimap.

About releasing functions returning auto_ptrs and adopting ones taking 
one, even if I have used this convention before, I feel it is far from 
standard and I don't remember having seeing it in Boost.  It is however 
more safe.

Regards,

Nicolas Fleury