On Wed, Oct 19, 2011 at 8:00 PM, Rhys Ulerich <rhys.ulerich@gmail.com> wrote:
The current shared_array doesn't keep track of size. This greatly decreases it's usefulness. So I wrote a variant that does: http://pastebin.com/wkdLVqM1
If one thinks of the class as a resource-owning iterator_range, I think a three member (shared_ptr/iterator_range) implementation gives more flexibility (e.g. sub range instances could track resource ownership against the same shared_ptr).
I extended the spirit of Olaf's shared_array2 implementation quite a bit so that it really is a smart resource-managing iterator_range called shared_range. The implementation (with documentation) and
Hmm, I thought mine was really smart already. :p Where did the (size_t) and (..., shared_ptr<void>) constructors go?
tests are up at https://github.com/RhysU/shared_range. I've opted to move resource allocating operation's like Olaf's shared_array2(size_t) constructor into free functions in the spirit of make_shared and allocate_shared.
Ah. Why? shared_array<char> v(10) (like vector) would be neater.
Olaf, I've added your name to the implementation header in shared_range.hpp. Please let me know if that's not okay with you.
That's fine.
typedef T element_type; advance_begin()
Doesn't iterator_range take care of that? Where did data() go? Olaf -- Olaf