on Thu Nov 17 2011, Gottlob Frege <gottlobfrege-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Nov 13, 2011 at 8:52 PM, Dave Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> wrote:
on Sun Nov 13 2011, Gottlob Frege <gottlobfrege-AT-gmail.com> wrote:
The only thing, I think, that I can't prevent, is construction of a new wrapper struct that has a temp_ptr as a member (which is copy constructed in wrapper's constructor). Can anyone think of a way to prevent that?
I'm pretty sure there's no way to do that.
Thinking about it more, I realize that *in debug* I could probably write some strange code that detects whether the copies are going into objects on the stack or not. Not very portable to say the least.
Oh, sure, in non-portable code at runtime, you can do it.
I think anyone that goes out of their way to make a wrapper struct gets what they deserve, so I don't really *need* to prevent all bad uses. But I can aslo imagine someone just using it improperly inside their class due to misunderstanding or whatever.
And thoughts on the goal of specific smart pointers for all occasions?
Sounds interesting; I'd like to know how it turns out for you in practice.
I wish I had 6 months to try it out and now had answers. People are requesting guidance *now*. We'll see...
FWIW, my instinct is that if you need that many pointers (or _ptrs) and you're worried that they're too liberal, then you should probably re-think your approach. Most code doesn't need to expose reference semantics; it can often be hidden behind well-tested and tightly-encapsulated library interfaces. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com