Re: [Boost-users] scoped_ptr::release (again)

Subject: Re: [Boost-users] scoped_ptr::release (again)
From: Matthieu Brucher (matthieu.brucher_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-02-24 14:26:07

2009/2/24 Steven Watanabe <watanabesj_at_[hidden]>:
> AMDG
>
> Nat Goodspeed wrote:
>>
>> Christopher Jefferson wrote:
>>
>>> I'd vote for keeping scoped_ptr as simple as possible, even removing that
>>> swap, and directing people who want more power to unique_ptr.
>>
>> I'd like to keep swap(). If the coder wants to disable it, wouldn't 'const
>> scoped_ptr' suffice?
>>
>> If I have a class that supports assignment, and my class uses scoped_ptr
>> to manage some resource, Herb Sutter's exception-safe assignment operator
>> still applies:
>>
>> 1. Construct a new stack scoped_ptr with the incoming resource. An
>> exception here leaves *this unmolested.
>> 2. Swap the member scoped_ptr with the new scoped_ptr. (swap() is
>> guaranteed not to throw.)
>> 3. Leaving the assignment-operator method body destroys the temp stack
>> scoped_ptr, releasing the member scoped_ptr's previous data.
>
> The question is not whether swap is useful, but whether it should
> be part of scoped_ptr rather than another smart pointer.
>
> In Christ,
> Steven Watanabe

Which other smart pointer? Scoped_* is really simple and the optimized
code is the same as a naked pointer, which is what some people need.
For me, scoped_* is exactly what I need:
- RAII
- tantamount to a simple pointer
- possible to swap pointers

Matthieu
-- 
Information System Engineer, Ph.D.
Website: http://matthieu-brucher.developpez.com/
Blogs: http://matt.eifelle.com and http://blog.developpez.com/?blog=92
LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com/in/matthieubrucher