Re: Is intrusive_ptr the thing to use?

On Mon, Nov 25, 2002 at 03:29:49PM -0800, Mark Storer wrote:
> >The only problem with it currently is that the 
> >smart_class MUST be managed with smart_ptrs,
> >if you try to 'delete' it, it will try to delete
> >itself and crash.
> 
> This seems like a problem that could be overcome through overloading the
> "delete" operator.  Perhaps if you declared your delete operator as
> protected (or private), and then made the smart pointers you wanted to use
> friends?

I thought of that, but it still wouldn't solve the problem of stack
instantiation.

> That would force you to use a specific set of smart pointer classes, but
> that doesn't sound like it would be a problem in your case.
> It's fixing the symptom rather than the disease, but is better than nothing.
> Turning runtime errors into compiletime errors is always a Good Thing.

Yeah, it would be nice if there were no errors at all however. I'm sure
there is a way to solve the problem and have the smart_class behave nicely
in all cases. When I get some more time I might try to work on it.

--Stephen

------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-->
Get 128 Bit SSL Encryption!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/CBxunD/vN2EAA/xGHJAA/EbFolB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------~->

Info: <http://www.boost.org>
Wiki: <http://www.crystalclearsoftware.com/cgi-bin/boost_wiki/wiki.pl>
Unsubscribe: <mailto:boost-users-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
 

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/