Subject: Re: [boost] [Root Pointer] New Documentation
From: Vladimir Batov (Vladimir.Batov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-10 19:58:59
On 04/11/2016 07:41 AM, Phil Bouchard wrote:
> On 04/10/2016 04:07 PM, Artyom Beilis wrote:
>>>> 3. What happens when root_ptr is deleted and node_ptr exists? Does use
>>>> of node_ptr lead to undefined behavior? If so it should be marked as
>>>> big warning.
>>> You can't construct a node_ptr without a root_ptr so node_ptrs are
>>> instantiated after a root_ptr.
To begin with, I feel that your main argument in favor of your library
compared to the std::shared_ptr is that your library takes care of
cycles. I am personally yet to be convinced that the cycles-related
problem is actually as big as you make it. More so, std::shared_ptr does
manage cycles with weak_ptr and discipline. ;-)
Second, I feel that Artyom asked an excellent question which IMO
highlights a fundamental flaw with your library.
I feel that your library does not solve the cycles problem but rather
replaces it with another problem. Namely, the problem of managing the
life-cycle of the memory manager (strangely called root_ptr). And IMO
that problem is quite serious given that all node_ptrs spawned from the
main root_ptr are freed (regardless of the cycles or existing
references) when that root_ptr is destroyed.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk