Subject: Re: [boost] scoped_ptr deleter
From: Stewart, Robert (Robert.Stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-09-15 09:32:44
> Stewart, Robert wrote:
> > That change creates multiple, distinct classes.
> > shared_ptr<T,boost::checked_deleter<T>> is not the same as
> > By embedding the deleter in the shared_ptr with type erasure,
> > shared_ptr<T> is shared_ptr<T> is shared_ptr<T>, regardless
> of the deleter.
> Sure and that's the point :)
I'm sorry, I read your post too quickly, seeing "shared_ptr" where you wrote "scoped_ptr."
> As I wrote, since the "noncopyable nature" of scoped_ptr
> (shared_ptr is copiable by design), the creation of distinct
> classes isn't a problem.
> I think that the "real problem" here
> is to provide a solution that doesn't require extra memory overhead.
That, of course, requires nothing more than a static member function in the supplied deleter type as your proposal implies.
Rob Stewart robert.stewart_at_[hidden]
Software Engineer, Core Software using std::disclaimer;
Susquehanna International Group, LLP http://www.sig.com
IMPORTANT: The information contained in this email and/or its attachments is confidential. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by reply and immediately delete this message and all its attachments. Any review, use, reproduction, disclosure or dissemination of this message or any attachment by an unintended recipient is strictly prohibited. Neither this message nor any attachment is intended as or should be construed as an offer, solicitation or recommendation to buy or sell any security or other financial instrument. Neither the sender, his or her employer nor any of their respective affiliates makes any warranties as to the completeness or accuracy of any of the information contained herein or that this message or any of its attachments is free of viruses.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk