Re: [boost] [smart_ptr] trunk versionof enable_shared_from_thisincompatible with TR1

From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-05-05 10:37:12

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

On Wednesday 30 April 2008 13:42 pm, Peter Dimov wrote:
> In principle, a new esft may avoid this by:
>
> 1. Allowing only (expired) weak_ptr instances to be created in the
> constructor;
> 2. Bringing the weak_ptr instances back to life once a shared_ptr takes
> ownership.
>
> This however seems to require a relatively major surgery to sp_counted_base
> and friends; I'm not sure I'm comfortable with that.

How uncomfortable are you with it?  I might try to implement the "reserved" 
weak_ptr idea, if I can add some way to distinguish between "expired and 
reserved" and plain old "expired".  lock() could return an empty shared_ptr 
with a non-null stored pointer for a "reserved" weak_ptr?  That's probably 
too evil.  A "bool reserved() const" member function?

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

iD8DBQFIHxuZ5vihyNWuA4URArg+AJ0ajvwRvM1NAbqK6n75Jzyr2RcWbwCbBY4r
NJBgshMzI4HI8LscV7qUuFk=
=CBph
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----