On Wed, Jun 15, 2011 at 3:35 AM, Stephan T. Lavavej <stl@exchange.microsoft.com> wrote:
[STL]
Actually, make_shared<T>() needs access to shared_ptr's guts, at least if the implementer takes advantage of the obvious and highly desirable optimization. They are tightly coupled to begin with.
[Emil Dotchevski]
However, the coupling between make_shared and shared_ptr is an implementation detail.
Right, that's what I was trying to say - internally, they are coupled, yet make_shared goes out of its way to be a free function.
I'm not sure if I read what you're saying correctly, but it seems to me that the default for any design should be less, not more coupling. If you make something a member, not only you're coupled, but also that fact is part of the interface, and therefore not an implementation detail. I wouldn't say that make_shared goes out of its way to be a free function -- it is a free function by default, so to speak. You need to have an upside to making something a member function, something that offsets the price you're paying in terms of coupling. Emil Dotchevski Reverge Studios, Inc. http://www.revergestudios.com/reblog/index.php?n=ReCode