Boost Users :
From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-05-18 06:03:24
Jean-François Brouillet wrote:
> The above link only has this to say:
>> intrusive_ptr(); // never throws
>> Postconditions: get() == 0.
>> Throws: nothing.
>> intrusive_ptr(T * p, bool add_ref = true);
>> Effects: if(p != 0 && add_ref) intrusive_ptr_add_ref(p);.
>> Postconditions: get() == p.
Right, so you can't call it a bug if the implementation does exactly as
> That settles it then.
> I just cannot use intrusive_ptr. Since shared_ptr is already
> ruled out, well .... roll-my-own-time, I guess ...
> Too bad for my use of boost.
I'm pretty sure that a shared_ptr-based port can closely approximate the
original, but a custom smart pointer would probably be a better choice for
idiomatic Java code.
As for intrusive_ptr, its main strength is that it has the size of a
pointer. Adding a boolean would likely meet serious opposition.
Your requirements are very interesting, however, and point to a
shared/intrusive hybrid along the lines of:
template<class T> class intrusive_ptr_2
T * px_;
// insert smart pointer boilerplate here ;-)
It's an intrusive pointer that's close to shared_ptr in expressive power;
you can use it to point to a subobject, for example.
Extending intrusive_ptr to accommodate the above along the lines of
template<class T, class U = void> class intrusive_ptr
T * px_;
U * pn_; // not present when U == void
could be feasible.
Boost-users list run by williamkempf at hotmail.com, kalb at libertysoft.com, bjorn.karlsson at readsoft.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, wekempf at cox.net