Re: [boost] [smart_ptr] Some questions

From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-10 09:27:59

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Thursday 10 April 2008 06:40 am, Daniel Frey wrote:
> On Wed, 2008-04-09 at 20:13 -0400, Frank Mori Hess wrote:
> I attached a minimalistic patch against the trunk which enhances the
> current code into that direction.

The static_cast in your patch is going to have problems with virtual base 
classes.  I think you could just use the Y* available in 
sp_enable_shared_from_this and call _internal_accept_owner from that.

Also, on further thought, I don't think enable_shared_from_this_base needs to 
be a template class at all.

> The name (enable_shared_from_this_base) is probably not a good name. I
> think that from shared_ptr's point of view, it doesn't need to know what
> the callback is used for. It might be better to call it
> notify_on_ownership or something in that direction. And the callback
> function should probably also be renamed. Suggestions?

I agree.  notify_on_ownership seems ok.  Some other possibilities are 
ownership_observer or shared_ptr_observer.  The callback might be 
accept_shared_ptr_owner() or update_shared_ptr_owner()

Also, I don't think enable_shared_from_this should actually use this base 
class in the end, whatever it is called (although it is a good test).  If it 
does, the user will have to take special care to avoid problems when deriving 
from both enable_shared_from_this and this base class.  This might happen if 
the user is deriving from the base class for purposes other than 
re-implementing enable_shared_from_this.

- -- 
Frank
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFH/hXl5vihyNWuA4URApOvAKCbEPJ81hykihJXVQDsJMaIjzYVeACfZoFZ
tzESBNqzyeWB6E6YgNnvF5E=
=n3li
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----