On Thursday, July 9, 2009, Frank Mori Hess <
frank.hess@...> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
>
> I wonder if it might be better/possible to have a shared_ptr<T> that didn't
> assume its corresponding "raw" pointer type was T* but rather T. For
> example, what is now a shared_ptr<int> would be specified as a
> shared_ptr<int*>. The motivation would be to allow support for other classes
> as the "raw" pointer type. For example, I might want to have a
> shared_ptr<monitor<T*> > where the monitor<T*> has an operator->() which does
> automatic locking/unlocking of a mutex before/after forwarding the
> operator->() to the plain T pointer.
I don't think lock/unlock on each -> call is typically a good idea.
x = p->x;
y = p->y;
That's 2 lock unlock sequences instead of one. Inefficient and what
if y changes after you read x?
It hides the locking too much, potentially leading to abuse and mistakes.
I think alexandrescu has an article about this somewhere. (he also has
articles about how to implement locking -> operators but I think he
later recanted on the whole idea)
Tony
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
