Hi, I want to comment some of the "Further Thoughts And Future Development" in the documentation. You said in the documentation Dan Walters-2 wrote:
1. Does this library belong within the smart_ptr library? In many ways it is similar in mechanics to the smart_ptrs but in a few ways it is fundamentally different, particularly in interface where an owner and callbacks are specified. Could this library be brought to conform more closely with the other smart_ptrs so that it can be included in this library? Or should paired_ptr have a new home?
I'm not sure this smart pointer should be included in the Boost.SmartPtr library. There are a lot of smart pointers to put all of them in Boost.SmartPtr. I would put it is a specific library. Intrusive Associations. Dan Walters-2 wrote:
2. Constructors and operators required. paired_ptrs need to be able to go in containers
to what constructors and operators are you referring to? Dan Walters-2 wrote:
3. the sizeof<paired_ptr> is 4 pointers, so 16 bytes assuming 4 bytes per pointer. Two of these pointers are the connect and disconnect callbacks. Should there be a separate callback version allowing an 8 byte skinny version without callbacks?
I agree that the callback version must be separated from the simpler one. Why do you need the owner? in which cases it is needed? Dan Walters-2 wrote:
4. should callbacks also provide a pointer to the specific paired_ptr that invoked the callback? This could be useful if an object contains a dynamic container of type paired_ptr.
No I don't thisnk so, as this is already stored on the pointer. Could you clarify your use case? Dan Walters-2 wrote:
5. polymorphic usage. You should be able to do paired_ptr<CDog, CAnimal> ptr_A; paired_ptr<CDog, CCat> ptr_B; ptr_A = ptr_B;
Yes this is a must have. Best, Vicente -- View this message in context: http://old.nabble.com/-paired-ptr--Proposing-a-new-smart-pointer-object-for-... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.