Boost logo

Boost :

From: Howard Hinnant (howard.hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-03-10 18:47:02

On Mar 10, 2006, at 3:40 PM, Ion Gaztañaga wrote:

>> Another option is here:
>> static_move_ptr is roughly a C++03 emulation of the proposed
>> unique_ptr.
> This static_move_ptr has an advantage I tried to emulate with
> boost::shmem::scoped_ptr (in the future
> boost::interprocess::scoped_ptr), which also has a template
> argument for
> the deleter (a must to free a shared memory portion allocated with
> buffer) and a "release" member.
> This allows user defined rollback functions using the deleter. You
> surely can do this with shared_ptr, but sometimes allocating the
> reference count is an overkill.
> I would suggest adding a templatized deleter for scoped_ptr (we don't
> always need "operator delete" to erase a pointer) or creating a
> templatized basic_scoped_ptr. The "release" member is in my opinion a
> good addition to allow rollback semantics (although implementing
> rollback functors as scoped_ptr deleters is a bit hard, even with
> bind/lambda). We can propose a rollback_ptr for this if we don't
> want to
> change scoped_ptr, although Andrei Alexandrescu's suggestion
> (on_block_xxx) would be optimal.

Or just accept static_move_ptr into boost?


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at