Subject: Re: [boost] [Root Pointer] New Documentation
From: Robert Ramey (ramey_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-04-10 22:05:51
On 4/10/16 4:58 PM, Vladimir Batov wrote:
> 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
This is my take on the library from a quick reading of the
documentation. So as far as I'm concerned you've passed the first major
hurdle that most submitters can't pass. You've managed to summarize the
purpose and motivation for the library succintly enough for someone to
determine in a couple of minutes whether it addresses a problem that he
currently has. I should say that documentation for many boost library
fail to do this - so in this sense you are ahead of the game.
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. ;-)
And as I see it, this is the crux of the debate. Does the facility if
offers worth the extra "overhead" that any library entails? Well,
that's what we're here to debate!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk