From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-20 20:20:58
"Daniel Wallin" <dalwan01_at_[hidden]> wrote in message:
> I'm moving this to a new thread.
> Not every smart pointer has to handle every possible case. If you
> custom deleters, use shared_ptr<>. The extra storage needed for the
> deleter IMO just isn't justified for something as simple as an
> transfer utility. What I do find interesting though is the ability
> delete incomplete types, IOW at some level capture of type at
> I'm attaching the implementation that I believe should be pushed
This is definitely an improvement over your earlier version! I like
the idea of zero overhead for non-customized deletion.
I had an idea today to add a policy parameter to the move_ptr which
would determine the 'deleter storage policy'. It would be NEITHER a
deletion policy, NOR a storage policy for the pointer; it would just
determine how (and whether) a deleter is stored:
template< typename T,
typename DeleterStorage = no_storage>
1. move_ptr<T> ( aka move_ptr<T, no_storage>) would be your new
I have in mind three other storage policies, which all allow user
supplied stateless deleters:
2. move_ptr<T, kozicki> (the name needs work -- no offense Bronek :-)
This would be (my version of) Bronek's pointer, with two pointers
extra overhead and essentially no runtime overhead.
3. move_ptr<T, linked_storage>. This is NOT a reference linked
implementation. This would have one pointer overhead for the deleter,
and very little runtime overhead in common cases.
4. move_ptr<T, hashed_storage> A slightly different version of
Note, in 3 and 4, the linked or hashed data structures would typically
not need to be consulted -- they would be used in 'unusual cases'.
With this approach, we could run tests comparing the performance of
the various implementations, and get people's appraisals of the
overhead involved in each case.
If in the end, people agree with your current opinion that the extra
storage needed for the deleter isn't justified for an ownership
transfer utility, then move_ptr<T, no_storage> will become the
'official' move pointer, and we can get rid of the second template
parameter. On the other hand, if enough people feel a custom deletion
facility to be useful, and if one of (2) -(4) above turns to be
clearly better than the others (not including (1)), we could have two
I haven't written the implementation yet. I'll try to do it late
Anyway, good work on your move_ptr!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk