From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-29 04:11:32
"Dan W." <danw_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Not sure if this might be a good idea, but here it goes:
> Would it make sense to have pointer container specializations for
> auto_ptr<>, shared_ptr<> and weak_ptr<>, simply as a way of specifying the
> desired semantics?
It makes sense if you can show what purpose it should serve.
> I'm thinking, for instance,
> ptr_vector< auto_ptr<X> > would compile to same code, basically, as
> ptr_vector<X>, except: it would take auto_ptr<> as input, and return
> auto_ptr<> through functions that would otherwise return a pointer.
there is not any functions that return a pointer. The way I have implemented
is by wrapping existing containers and you cannot put an auto_ptr into
you would have to use something special like NTL.
> ptr_vector< shared_ptr<X> > would allow pointer containers to share
> ownership, and would interface via shared_ptr<>'s; and...
what interface did you have in mind.?
> ptr_vector< weak_ptr<X> > might give us the advantage of simplified
> algorithmic syntax, etceteras, but not take ownership.
While the idea is nice, I need to be convinced. The current interface (and
the whole desing idea) is build
upon the idea of owning heap-allocated pointers and hiding them behind an
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk