Am Wednesday 16 September 2009 16:15:11 schrieb Felipe Magno de Almeida:
On Wed, Sep 16, 2009 at 1:08 PM, Stefan Strasser <strasser@uni-bremen.de> wrote:
Am Wednesday 16 September 2009 16:01:00 schrieb Felipe Magno de Almeida:
[snip]
the custom destruction can be shared through the application for use with allocators for example.
that's a valid point, but I'm still not sure if changing the type of a widely used class whose ONLY purpose is to call "delete", and break some code, is the right thing to do. it would be a new pointer type. the only thing it has in common with scoped_ptr is the pointer semantics. and you could easily introduce a new type that makes this easy to build: template<class T, class This> class ptr; //part of boost template<class T> struct ogre_ptr : public ptr<T,ogre_ptr<This> >{ ogre_ptr(T *t) : ... ~ogre_ptr(){ delete ogre-style. } };
that simplifies things a lot.
It does for delete and it does for custom deleters.
but a scoped_ptr delete would provide the same thing as a destructor or a scope exit: execute custom code.
I don't understand why you think calling delete is so different from any other kind of destruction. To me it is as custom as anything else.
the only reason shared_ptr or unique_ptr do have deleters is because the point of destruction aren't statically known, as they can be copied or moved.
They do because it allows using other destruction strategy. Because the point of destruction is unknown is because it uses a type erasure technique.