Hmm -- so I guess, in the cases I'm talking about, I should store a shared_ptr, and just return a const refererence. Then, if I need to have a copy of the member elsewhere to manipulate, I could return a weak_ptr. Thanks for that! On 2 July 2011 18:06, Richard Damon <Richard@damon-family.org> wrote:
On 7/2/11 12:28 PM, doug livesey wrote:
Hi -- I'm loving how easy shared_ptr makes object handling, but am not sure about how to use weak_ptr. Should I use it in places where previously I would have, say, returned a const reference?
A weak pointer should be used where you need to keep a pointer around for an object, but you do not insist that the object stays around, but you do want to know if the object has gone away.
The main use of this is circular references, where for example, object A has a pointer to B, and object B has a pointer to A. If both of these were regular shared_ptrs than once this combination was created, then it would never go away as both A and B have a strong reference to them. Making one of the links a weak pointer, says that when all other shared_ptr references to the pair go away, then both A and B go away.
You do have to be a bit careful and think about the consequences, and if you change the pointer from B to A to be a weak-ptr, then if all shared_ptr references to A go away, but you still have some to B, then A will go away but not B, so B needs to be able to handle that case.
-- Richard Damon
_______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users