Subject: Re: [boost] [afio] Formal review of Boost.AFIO
From: AgustÃn K-ballo BergÃ© (kaballo86_at_[hidden])
Date: 2015-08-31 12:06:14
On 8/31/2015 12:50 PM, Hartmut Kaiser wrote:
>> I find it personally unfortunate that C++ decided to call it
>> shared_ptr because of the word "shared" in the name, because it
>> really isn't what its name says.
> I believe that a lot of thought went into this decision. And it's called
> shared_ptr exactly because of that it represents shared ownership. I think
> you're again confused about what's the rationale of the design and what's
> the consequence of it. Shared ownership is the rationale, being an 'atomic
> safe reference counting implementation which provides no guarantees to its
> pointee' is a consequence.
Let me add that an "atomic safe reference counting implementation" is
just one of the possible implementations. Although I am not aware of any
concrete implementation doing things differently, there are alternative
possible implementations like chaining, and it is the reason for having
both `use_count` and `unique`.
-- Agustín K-ballo Bergé.- http://talesofcpp.fusionfenix.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk