[boost] Re: Interest in smart pointer with value semantics?

From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-05 06:32:59

"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:btbbg9$r8o$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> [...]
> >  And I would want to take a smart pointer with shared
> > semantics, because that says foo() isn't responsible for cleaning
> > it up if something happens (or even if nothing happens).
>
> ok. If this kind of documentation is important, then I guess one could
> achieve the same (though differently) by having a coding guide-line
> that says naked pointers means no ownership and auto_ptr means
> that foo takes ownership.

But you are still missing shared ownership.  Sometimes, you want to
know that p is safe, but you don't have to worry about it.  That's why
you specify a shared pointer.

> So how do you say foo() is responsible for clean up?

You already said it: void foo(auto_ptr<T> p). ;)

> > Don't you use smart pointers that way?
>
> I've never done it like that.

It's never too late to start. ;)

Dave

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 12/26/2003