Subject: Re: [boost] [RFC] unique_val (handles, IDs, descriptors...)
From: Miguel Ojeda (miguel.ojeda.sandonis_at_[hidden])
Date: 2018-02-14 22:48:37
On Wed, Feb 14, 2018 at 11:06 PM, Brook Milligan <brook_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> On Feb 14, 2018, at 2:18 PM, Miguel Ojeda via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> If you have the time, please take a look (specially to the Rationale)
>> and let me know your comments. The code itself is very short and
> A quick look suggests that this is useful.
Thanks as well for the very quick review!
> However, why not have the unique_val class _be_ the RAII class? Couldn't this be done with extra template arguments (or just one) giving construction/destruction policies? You have perfect forwarding so constructor arguments can be forwarded to the policy. Would this not give you the Foo class for free? Just wondering.
I thought about that as a possible extension, but since I typically
need/want to write other things (operations, logging...) in the RAII
class, I wrote that way. Also, for beginners, it may be easier to
understand the ctor/dtor pair than playing with policies. Still, I
agree with you, I think adding support for a custom deleter and the
like is a good idea (as unique_ptr does) and allows for both styles --
I have it there as a possible extension at the end of Notes. Please
let me know if I misunderstood you, though!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk