Subject: Re: [boost] [smart ptr] Any interest in copy-on-write pointer forC++11?
From: Jeffrey Lee Hellrung, Jr. (jeffrey.hellrung_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-02-11 16:12:37
On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 12:01 PM, Ralph Tandetzky <
> That interface might not prove very convenient in practice though.
>> Although you could, I think, build apply/APPLY upon it.
>> read_ptr<T> pr;
>> if( write_ptr<T> pw = pr.write() )
>> pr = std::move( pw );
>> I don't, however, particularly like the semantics of the case in which pr
>> is already unique. In principle it shouldn't matter because we're writing
>> pr from this thread, so nobody ought to be reading it, but still, it
>> doesn't feel right.
> Nice idea though. write_ptr<T> would behave like value_ptr<T>
Not as I understand it; write_ptr would behave similar to unique_ptr, i.e.,
it would be move-only.
and read_ptr<T> would behave like shared_ptr<T const> with the additional
> ability to return write_ptrs and being constructible from an rref to
The function apply can be implemented as a non-member function:
> template <typename F>
> void apply( read_ptr<T> & pr, F f )
> write_ptr<T> pw = pr.write();
> assert( pw );
> f( pw.get() );
> pr = std::move( pw );
> The macro APPLY could be implemented similar to the way I implemented it
> for cow_ptr. Once you have apply() and/or APPLY the interface isn't so
> inconvenient anymore. write_ptr might as well just be a value_ptr. Possibly
> value_ptr<T> and read_ptr<T> need to be friends of each other.
> The question for this design is: Is it worth it? I guess I need to think
> about that a little more in order to come to a conclusion.
I think this is better (safer, clearer, more flexible) than packaging
roughly equivalent behavior within a single cow_ptr class. IMHO of course.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk