Subject: Re: [boost] Review of a safer memory management approach for C++?
From: Ingo Loehken (Ingo.Loehken_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-28 11:35:21
How about resources shared across multiple instances, where the shared
resource is hold
by a static to a weak_ptr and each instance participating to that resource
holds it as a shared
ptr, to guarantee that there is no lifetime prolongation (same as approach
for std::cout and others).
Assumption for above statement : Construction of the resource is quite
Another limitation, is if you do not have the choice. Relying on other
around objects with embedded reference counts, to enable sharing across
such like done by XPCOM in Mozilla between JS and C++ via idl.
From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
Date: 28.05.2010 16:11
Subject: Re: [boost] Review of a safer memory management approach
Sent by: boost-bounces_at_[hidden]
[Please don't top post. Try outlook-quotefix or oe-quotefix:
At Fri, 28 May 2010 15:32:22 +0200, Ingo Loehken wrote:
>> From: David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
>> Furthermore, your logic seems flawed to me. By analogy:
>> There is no need for Intel processors (we can all use AMD).
>> Therefore there is no use for an Intel processor?
> No, thats a twisted interpretation. I'm just pointing out, there is a
> for shared ownership.
I'm not sure I agree that there actually is a need. All the shared
ownership scenarios I can think of can be translated into
single-ownership-at-a-higher-level. That, however, is not always
-- Dave Abrahams Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk