Re: [boost] [shared_ptr] delete shared_ptr

Subject: Re: [boost] [shared_ptr] delete shared_ptr
From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-03-17 15:42:33

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

On Thursday, March 17, 2011, pavel wrote:
>  Kenny wrote on Thursday, March 17, 2011 at 22:08:51:
> > 
> > Because it's a lie.  "delete" should delete something, and not be
> > overloaded to perform non-obvious, unrelated logic.  A perfect example
> > is how the proposed usage of "delete" confused Frank Mori Hess.  Was it
> > unreasonable for him to see "delete" and assume that it was actually
> > deleting something?
> 
> i disagree with you
> in my view it perfectly fits

Ok, I think I'm following what you want delete to do now.  You're thinking 
that "delete GenericPointerObject" for should have the same effect on the 
pointed-to object as destroying the GenericPointerObject when 
GenericPointerObject is not a "plain old pointer".  That would only be sort-
of consistent with ordinary usage of delete if you viewed "plain old 
pointers" as a type that implies unique ownership.  I don't see "plain old 
pointers" as implying anything about ownership.  It's the "delete" part of 
"delete p" that implies the object should be destroyed, not the fact that p 
is a plain old pointer.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEARECAAYFAk2CZCkACgkQ5vihyNWuA4WqrACgzJ9sTpTvNEjJZLIKZDf3+Jrr
yboAn2P9nCPz3Y9da8txZm1wnj3sQXXI
=ONQR
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----