From: Phil Bouchard (philippe_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-30 12:20:13
"Steven Watanabe" <watanabesj_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> I'm thinking that the cleanest solution will be to have set deletion
> split the
> cleanup into first calling all the objects' destructors and then freeing
> the memory. When the objects are destroyed you should increment the
> reference count to make sure that the objects are not destroyed again.
> When you actually release the memory you can then verify that the
> count is 1, and thus that all references to the object come from within
> the set.
> Otherwise, looking at your current implementation, it looks like
> on the heap will never clean up the object pointed to until the set goes
That's funny because actually I forgot adding a U<T>::reset() statement
before set::release() inside shifted_ptr::release() in the code I submitted
yesterday. I wanted to change it quickly but not on time.
Now the first element in the set being deleted is the one pointed to by po_;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk