Re: [boost] Review of a safer memory management approach for C++?

Subject: Re: [boost] Review of a safer memory management approach for C++?
From: Ingo Loehken (Ingo.Loehken_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-27 14:02:45

if I understand "hard to reason about" in the right why : like there is no 
need for shared ownership at all,
this also means that there is no use for COM Programming - and of course 
there is. Raw resp. opaque
pointers have one huge advantage in productive environments : They work as 
perfect isolators, removing
any compile time dependencies. And from my point of view, compile time is 
what matters most, if you go
productive, otherwise you end up waiting for recompiles.

From:   Mathias Gaunard <mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden]>
To:     boost_at_[hidden]
Date:   27.05.2010 14:59
Subject:        Re: [boost] Review of a safer memory management approach 
for C++?
Sent by:        boost-bounces_at_[hidden]

Bartlett, Roscoe A wrote:
> Hello Boost developers,
> 
> I am interested in finding one or more individuals who are knowledgeable 
about memory management in C++ (and especially of the reference-counting 
approach taken by boost::shared_ptr and boost::weak_ptr) to review an idea 
for a comprehensive approach to safer memory management in C++ that 
encapsulates all raw C++ pointers in high-level code.

Never use owning naked pointers and only use RAII (as is required for 
exception-safe programming anyway) with exclusive ownership and no 
aliasing, and you have no problems.

Usage of shared_ptr should be an exception, not a widely deployed 
solution to memory management issues.
Shared ownership is hard to reason about, and even if you use a similar 
cycle-aware solution, cycles remain a real problem (they prevent 
deterministic ordered destruction of objects, meaning they're only 
applicable to certain classes of objects).

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: 
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost