Re: [boost] singleton raw pointer access

From: Jason Hise (chaos_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-29 15:42:18

Rob Stewart wrote:

>From: Jason Hise <chaos_at_[hidden]>
>  
>
>>But that's what the smart pointer itself already provides.  In what 
>>circumstances would it be better for client code to work with a smart 
>>reference than with a smart pointer?  The smart pointer provides access 
>>    
>>
>
>The very one you started this thread with!  You asked whether
>get_unsafe_ptr() should be spelled operator *().
>
>You wanted to provide access to the raw pointer/reference in
>order to allow for polymorphic usage.  The proxy to which I've
>been referring provides a safe means for that because the client
>can grab and hold a smart reference which can converts
>(explicitly or implicitly, your choice) to T & and T *.
>  
>
I'm sorry, I figured out where the lapse in my thinking was.  I was 
initially thinking that if the smart reference would be immediately 
converted to a real reference, then the smart reference would not serve 
a purpose and the function might as well return a real reference.  If it 
was holding a lock, however, then it would add thread safety while the 
raw pointers or references existed.

I need to get more sleep so I can think more clearly :)  Your idea is 
indeed a good one.

-Jason