Re: [boost] [shifted_ptr] __normal_iterator ..?

From: Phil Bouchard (philippe_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-06-24 03:12:44

"Larry Evans" <cppljevans_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:g3liss$ubd$1_at_ger.gmane.org...

[...]

> Ah!  Looking at the api doc:
>
>   <root>/libs/smart_ptr/doc/api/index.html
>
> I'd guess that the ref_count is in boost::sh::detail::owned_base
> along with some other data having something to do with the
> 'Memory segment' mentioned in section 3.3 of:
>
>   <root>/libs/smart_ptr/doc/index.html

Precisely, owned_base derives from sp_counted_base which contains the 
counter.

[...]

> Why not use the forwarding library that was recently approved?
> A relevant post is:
>
> http://lists.boost.org/Archives/boost/2007/12/131699.php

Thanks I will; I am aware of the moving semantics on their way up the 
standards I just need to have all the code exposed while working on the 
allocator before using anything else.

[...]

>   namespace container_intern
>
> actually rewrite std::vector to use a new defintion of std::allocator
> template which provided different pointer types.  One type was for
> the root pointer of the container, the other was for all other
> pointers used in the container.  The default value of std::allocator
> simply made root_pointer the same as pointer.  The specialized
> version of std::allocator made the root_pointer a smart_pointer.
>
> Obviously the 2nd one would be very hard (or at least take very
> long) to get into the standard.

How fortunate!  I could get use of that code...  On the other hand 
shifted_ptr is done and STL containers support is extracurricular so I would 
vote for the latter.  It can take all the time at that level, but we are 
simply requiring lessening the standards...

-Phil