Re: [boost] [Block Pointer] Review Request

Subject: Re: [boost] [Block Pointer] Review Request
From: Mathias Gaunard (mathias.gaunard_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-05-02 13:09:29

On 02/05/2011 02:20, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> On 5/1/2011 3:05 PM, Mathias Gaunard wrote:
>>
>> This is not what I meant. When you have a cycle, the order in which
>> destructors are called cannot be specified.
>
> Wrong because block_ptr knows in which order the memory blocks were
> instantiated, just as in a FIFO.

Order of instantiation is irrelevant outside of RAII management 
patterns, since an object may outlive its creator (that's the point).

>
> I am not sure if I understand correctly what you are saying but
> block_ptr members to other classes will be invalidated if they point to
> an object that is currently being destructed. You can see an example in
> the 3rd test of the following file:
> https://svn.boost.org/svn/boost/sandbox/block_ptr/libs/smart_ptr/test/block_ptr_test1.cpp

What do you mean by the block_ptr will be invalidated? The pointer will 
be set to zero?

So that's something any user should be ready for, check block pointers 
are non-zero in destructors?