From: "troy d.straszheim" <troy@resophonic.com>
On Aug 6, 2004, at 5:04 PM, Rob Stewart wrote:
Line 1b is a means to make construction from raw pointers more apparent, which is good, I agree. Note that your version can be rewritten like this, too:
shared_ptr<Widget> p(rawptr(new Widget(a, b)));
Note, however, that "rawptr" is rather terse for something you're trying to call attention to. How about "from_raw_ptr" or "from_raw_pointer?"
Somehow it has got stuck in my head that this should be shared_pointer_cast<>, but I'm having trouble justifying it, other than that it would look nice next to the dynamic_pointer_cast<> and so forth.
shared_ptr<Widget> p = shared_ptr_cast<Widget>(new Widget);
Actually, that's better because there's the potential to overload/specialize it for other source pointer types, and because from_raw_pointer(), as suggested, can't be used for any other destination type and yet purports to be the only such conversion you'll need. IOW, "from_raw_pointer" doesn't mention the destination type, while "shared_ptr_cast" does. OTOH, "from_raw_pointer" could be made to be like C++ casts in order to make it interoperable with other destination types: shared_ptr<Widget> p(from_raw_pointer<shared_ptr<Widget> >( new Widget)); Once you see that, you really want to get "_cast" in the name: shared_ptr<Widget> p(raw_ptr_cast<shared_ptr<Widget> >( new Widget)); ("pointer" versus "ptr" would really make it long.) -- Rob Stewart stewart@sig.com Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;