From: Jason Hise <chaos@ezequal.com>
Rob Stewart wrote:
From: Jason Hise <chaos@ezequal.com>
But that's what the smart pointer itself already provides. In what circumstances would it be better for client code to work with a smart reference than with a smart pointer? The smart pointer provides access
The very one you started this thread with! You asked whether get_unsafe_ptr() should be spelled operator *().
You wanted to provide access to the raw pointer/reference in order to allow for polymorphic usage. The proxy to which I've been referring provides a safe means for that because the client can grab and hold a smart reference which can converts (explicitly or implicitly, your choice) to T & and T *.
I'm sorry, I figured out where the lapse in my thinking was. I was initially thinking that if the smart reference would be immediately converted to a real reference, then the smart reference would not serve a purpose and the function might as well return a real reference. If it was holding a lock, however, then it would add thread safety while the raw pointers or references existed.
Eureka! Yes, you've got it now. I'm glad we broke through the cognitive dissonance. 8-)
I need to get more sleep so I can think more clearly :) Your idea is indeed a good one.
Sleep? I have eight kids! I never get enough sleep! -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;