Re: [boost] singleton raw pointer access

From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-29 16:37:01

From: Jason Hise <chaos_at_[hidden]>
> 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.

Eureka!  Yes, you've got it now.  I'm glad we broke through the
cognitive dissonance. 8-)

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

Sleep?  I have eight kids!  I never get enough sleep!

-- 
Rob Stewart                           stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer                     http://www.sig.com
Susquehanna International Group, LLP  using std::disclaimer;