Neil Groves-3 wrote:
On Tue, Jul 26, 2011 at 11:39 PM, dgwsoft <gareth@dgwsoft.co.uk> wrote:
boost::shared_ptr<int> p(new int(42));
To access elements of the array I can do:
p.get()[10] = 7;
But wouldn't it be nicer to do:
p[10] = 7; // ?
So: why is no T& operator[](int) defined for shared_ptr ? I'm just interested in the design reasons for this.
This isn't guaranteed to properly destroy the array. It will call delete, rather than delete[]. This is why there is also boost::shared_array which is what you should be using and has an operator[].
Thanks, Neil, that makes perfect sense. One should never do: boost::shared_ptr<int> p(new int(42)); In which case, someone should look at this page: http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_47_0/libs/smart_ptr/shared_ptr.htm#example (under Thread Safety) which is where I copied that code from. cheers Gareth -- View this message in context: http://boost.2283326.n4.nabble.com/shared-ptr-why-no-operator-tp3697208p3697... Sent from the Boost - Dev mailing list archive at Nabble.com.