Re: [boost] [smart_ptr] Interest in the missing smart pointer (that can target the stack)

Subject: Re: [boost] [smart_ptr] Interest in the missing smart pointer (that can target the stack)
From: Paul A. Bristow (pbristow_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-02-04 07:53:52

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Boost [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]] On Behalf Of Rob Stewart
> Sent: 04 February 2016 10:46
> To: boost_at_[hidden]
> Subject: Re: [boost] [smart_ptr] Interest in the missing smart pointer (that can target the stack)
> 
> On February 2, 2016 9:20:11 PM EST, Noah <duneroadrunner_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > On 2/2/2016 1:40 AM, Rob Stewart wrote:

> It's a lot simpler than that: Trust the Programmer. That's been part of C and C++ from the start.

And that was a BIG mistake.  Most programmers can't be trusted a millimeter (especially me).

 >By all means default construct with zero-initialization and provide a converting constructor from
numeric
> types. That will provide the safety you're after. However, rather than prevent a not uncommon use
> case, just make that use case possible.

Surely, the root cause is failure to use *hardware* to detect 'failure-to-initialize' and
'out-of-range'.

That's the only way this can be done efficiently.

But the C/C++ languages designed that out - no access to status flags and no proper
vectors/matrices.

(and so the hardware hasn't been encouraged to do it well). 

So C/C++ like software is doomed to be inefficient and/or dodgy.

That Robert has got few visible users suggests that most ordinary programmers just don't care.
(There are a subset that have their own small world with rules and programmer checkers to reduce the
risks).

But I applaud his dogged persistence and support anything to get wider use.

Paul

---
Paul A. Bristow
Prizet Farmhouse
Kendal UK LA8 8AB
[phone]