Re: [boost] shared_ptr comparison

From: John Max Skaller (skaller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-19 13:59:08

Howard Hinnant wrote:
> 
> On Saturday, August 18, 2001, at 05:55  PM, John Max Skaller wrote:
> 
> > Summary: don't fix shared_pointer. Use array<T,n> instead.
> > This is well principled. The specialisation is not.
> 
> Sometimes a programmer needs a dynamically allocated array of objects
> with the array length not known until run time.  

        Yes, I agree: this is what a C VLA does, so WG14 agrees too :-)

> And sometimes vector will not fit the bill.  

        I agree. My main contention is that

        a) we should drop shared_array
        b) we should use 

                shared_ptr< array<T> >
                shared_ptr< fixed_array<T,n> >

instead of 

                shared_ptr< T[] >
                shared_ptr< T[n] >

That is: don't specialise shared_ptr. Instead, make
first class array types for fixed length arrays
of both the types (1) length constant known at compile
time and (2) length constant bound at construction time.
[And use vector for (3) length variable]

The reason is:

        1) the first class types have uses 
                other than shared objects

        2) there is no need to specialise shared_ptr 
                for such first class types

I.e.: I agree with removing shared_array and using shared_ptr,
but suggest that instead of a specialisation, to use first class
array types.
        
-- 
John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller_at_[hidden] 
10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850
New generation programming language Felix  http://felix.sourceforge.net
Literate Programming tool Interscript     
http://Interscript.sourceforge.net