Re: [boost] [smart_ptr] scoped_array / shared_array (size_t) constructor

Subject: Re: [boost] [smart_ptr] scoped_array / shared_array (size_t) constructor
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2011-11-06 08:19:14

On Sunday, November 06, 2011 12:15:35 Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Sat, Nov 5, 2011 at 6:53 PM, Andrey Semashev
> 
> It's not a xor. Supporting a (size_t) constructor does not mean you
> can't (also) implent make_ and allocate_ functions.

Why would we need the ambiguous constructor then? Just do "the right thing" 
from the start.

> >> Isn't it kinda like a shared container (except it doesn't know it's
> >> size
> >> etc)?
> >> I'd also like to see a shared_array that knows it's size, this is a
> >> first step towards that.
> > 
> > I'd like to repeat that pointers are not containers. Their purpose and
> 
> It's about shared_array. Arrays are pointers are not synonyms.

Actually, they are. The only difference is the deallocation method. They stop 
being similar when you add advanced features I mentioned, then arrays become 
containers.

> > application are quite different, and hence there's no reason to follow
> > containers interface. If you want things like size, iterators and
> > built-in memory management, just use containers. And if you want a
> > shared container, just use shared_ptr with a container.
> 
> Stop kidding me please. shared_ptr<vector> is totally unsuitable.

Why?