[boost] Re: shared_ptr improvement proposal

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-08 11:29:50

brangdon_at_[hidden] (Dave Harris) writes:

> In-Reply-To: <200408061504.i76F4EW20044_at_[hidden]>
> stewart_at_[hidden] (Rob Stewart) wrote (abridged):
>> Note, however, that "rawptr" is rather terse for something you're
>> trying to call attention to.
>
> I liked the terseness. To be honest I am less likely to use new features 
> if they are verbose. "boost::raw_ptr()" is already 16 characters. Surely 
> the main benefit comes from being able to search for raw_ptr with tools 
> like grep, rather than with eyeballs?
>
> The later suggestion of writing:
>
>     boost::shared_ptr<Widget> p = boost::shared_ptr_cast<Widget>(new 
> Widget);
>
> is even more verbose and repetitive, the word "Widget" occurring 3 times. 
> The original proposal:
>
>     boost::shared_ptr<Widget> wp2 = boost::raw_ptr(new Widget(a, b));
>
> at least fits into 80 columns.

This is a bit similar to the borrowed( ... ) and null_ok( ... )
operators from Boost.Python

> Is it time to wrap operator new()? For example:
>
>     boost::shared_ptr<Widget> wp2 = boost::make<Widget>(a, b);
>
> with something like:
>
>     template <typename R, typename A, typename B>
>     inline raw_ptr_t<R> make( A &a, B &b ) {
>         return raw_ptr_t<R>( new R( a, b ) );
>     }
>
> Users being allowed to specialise make<> with their own factory code if 
> desired.

Yeah, except

  #define raw_ptr_t std::auto_ptr

;-)

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com