From: Daniel Frey (d.frey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-29 12:49:04
On Tue, 2008-04-29 at 18:45 +0300, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Daniel Frey:
> > TR1 states that the dtor of enable_shared_from_this is non-virtual, the
> > trunk version violates this.
> Yes. This is the least of our worries though.
> We need to decide on the direction we need to take. The upcoming C++
> committee meeting is the last chance for a new feature to go into the
> working paper, and it may even be too late, depending on the LWG mood.
> I'm not sure yet what the best course of action is, but one reasonable
> course of action would be to propose sp_accept_owner (with the appropriate
> changes to enable_shared_from_this). An additional proposal may include the
> member to free function change, if we choose to pursue it.
Just to clarify: The proposed changes do or do not include the current
extension to allow shared_from_this() to be called during the ctor?
> The current state of enable_shared_from_this is not in accordance with this
> plan. If we propose sp_accept_owner, I strongly prefer the trunk version of
> enable_shared_from_this to reflect the proposal, in a plain, unoptimized,
> "reference", doable in user space, form. Daniel, your optimization work
> takes us further away from this. Now is not the time to optimize; we need to
> be sure of the specification we're implementing, and even if we were, it
> pays off at the beginning to have a plain reference implementation that
> others can lift off as-is and include in their stdlibs.
OK. Note that I only intended to help. I think the communication might
not have been optimal so far, but your post definitely helps me to
understand what the roadmap should be and what I should concentrate on.
Except you think I can not be of any help... :-/
> To get back to the subject, our current specification of sp_accept_owner
> requires the virtual destructor, a fact that had remained hidden (at least
> for me) because we don't have a reference implementation of the std changes
> we're (hypothetically) about to propose.
I think that if we adopt the approach of turning enable_shared_from_this
into a non-template class and make shared_from_this a free function,
there would no longer be any need for a virtual dtor. Since I don't know
if shared_from_this-from-ctor should be in, I attached two version to
show why the virtual dtor should not be required. I also tried to use
only public interfaces (including sp_accept_owner). Both versions are
Or is there any other reason why sp_accept_owner requires a virtual
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk