Sid Sacek wrote:
Now watch this: int my_buffer_size = 1234; auto buffer = boost::make_shared< unsigned char[] >( my_buffer_size ); buffer[ index ] = something; int cap = buffer.capacity();
Doesn't that feel the most natural ?
I can see why you desire this. One concern is that boost::shared_ptr<T[]> is usable without boost::make_shared. With boost::make_shared, yes, in my implementation the size is stored somewhere and changing the machinery could possibly surface that through boost::shared_ptr's interface. But what happens when boost::shared_ptr<T[]> is used with operator new[]? The size is not stored in that case. You mentioned in an earlier mail that you would prefer that size() return a value like -1 in such a case. That also feels very strange to me; i.e. returning a size_t but reserving a value like -1 to indicate unknown size. Glen