Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] [smart_ptr] Is there any interest in unique_ptr with type erased deleter?
From: Andrey Semashev (andrey.semashev_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-03-21 11:15:41

On 03/21/17 12:54, Andrey Davydov via Boost wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 21, 2017 at 12:00 PM, Richard Hodges <hodges.r_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> What is required, more than simply creating a type-erased deleter?
> Also deleter must capture pointer, because pointer which was passed to
> constructor can differ from the pointer which will be deleted. For example,
> struct Base { /* ... */ };
> struct Derived : Base { /* ... */ };
> ptr<Derived> p1(new Derived);
> void * raw_p1 = p1.get();
> ptr<Base> p2 = std::move(p1);
> void * raw_p2 = p2.get();
> assert(raw_p1 != raw_p2);

The above piece of code strikes me as very unsafe and better be avoided
in the first place. Designing new tools to handle this case is IMHO

Now, I can understand the need to perform casts on smart-pointers, but
they should still provide some level of safety, at least the same level
that is provided by pointer casts in the core language. But supporting
casts should not require a new smart-pointer. And indeed it doesn't:

   template< typename U, typename T, typename D >
   std::unique_ptr< U, D > static_pointer_cast(
     std::unique_ptr< T, D >&& p)
     D d = p.get_deleter();
     return std::unique_ptr< U, D >(
       static_cast< U* >(p.release()),

The other part of your proposal, which is polymorphic behavior with a
deleter knowing the type to call the destructor on, can be solved by a
custom deleter. I'm not sure a generalized version of such deleter would
have a large demand, given that there is the alternative TONGARI J
suggested, but I'm not opposed to a proposal.

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at