Subject: Re: [boost] Looking for thoughts on a new smart pointer: shared_ptr_nonnull
From: Thorsten Ottosen (thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-09 02:09:55
On 09-10-2013 00:44, Gavin Lambert wrote:
> On 10/9/2013 3:26 AM, Quoth Thorsten Ottosen:
>> I suppose there is still a need to break cycles. Why would this have
> But part of the semantics of weak_ptr is that it can point to a
> non-existent (expired) object, which is effectively the same as a null
> one. And lock() must be able to return an empty pointer, so it would
> have to be a regular shared_ptr<T> rather than a
> shared_ptr<*_non_null<T>>. So I'm not sure if a weak_ptr<*_non_null<T>>
> could make sense.
Or lock() could return something else. Anyway, it could be that just
reusing the normal weak ptr would be good.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk