On Fri, Nov 2, 2012 at 11:47 AM, Peter Dimov <lists@pdimov.com> wrote:
Nathan Crookston wrote:
Interesting. If/when the code is ready to view, I'd be curious to see how it's accomplished.
Voila:
https://svn.boost.org/trac/boost/changeset/81149 Very slick. Compiler errors for using operator* on a shared_ptr<T[]> are a little circuitous, but not too bad. . . though once everyone has a compiler-implemented static_assert such errors will be nicer.
I assume that, using the aliasing constructor, I'll be able to write something like the following: shared_ptr<int[]> a1(new int[500]); shared_ptr<int[]> a2(a1, &a1[250]); a1.reset();//a2 is still okay after this line.
Glen Fernandes wrote:
Maybe I (and Nate) can help you with those tests.
Thanks for the offer, but I managed. :-)
You could take a look at them and see if I made some obvious mistake, since compile-fail tests pass if one does something stupid. :-) They all looked good to me -- including the coverage.
I'm excited to update my code to use this. A few questions: Should shared_ptr<T[]> be constructable from shared_array<T>? It seems like the following syntax is possible (my toy code seemed to work): shared_ptr<B> sp1 = make_shared<B>(<B ctor args>);//1 shared_ptr<B[]> sp2 = make_shared<B[]>(number_of_B);//2: Default constructed shared_ptr<B[]> sp3 = make_shared<B[]>(number_of_B, <B ctor args>);//3: All initialized to this. shared_ptr<int[]> sp4 = make_shared<int[]>(number_of_ints);//4: uninitialized shared_ptr<int[]> sp4 = make_shared<int[]>(number_of_ints, 5);//5: all initialized to 5 Are there potential ambiguities with the previous? Thanks again for working on this. Nate