feedc0de/boost_smart_ptr
1
0
Fork 0
forked from boostorg/smart_ptr
Code Pull Requests Activity

Add FAQ: why no release()

Browse Source 
[SVN r12286]
This commit is contained in:
Beman Dawes
2002-01-11 20:20:07 +00:00
parent 11ec515378
commit 4f964ce6ad
1 changed files with 15 additions and 1 deletions
Download Patch File Download Diff File Expand all files Collapse all files

16
shared_ptr.htm
View File

@ -252,9 +252,23 @@ complex project that turned out to have cyclic-dependencies.</p>
<b>A.</b> Because complexity limit implementors and complicate the specification without apparent benefit to
<b>shared_ptr</b> users. For example, error-checking implementations might become non-conforming if they
had to meet stringent complexity requirements.</p>
<p><b>Q.</b> Why doesn't <b>shared_ptr</b> provide a release() function?<br>
<b>A.</b> <b>shared_ptr</b> cannot give away ownership unless it's unique()
because the other copy will still destroy the object.</p>
<p>Consider:</p>
<blockquote>
<pre>shared_ptr&lt;int&gt; a(new int);
shared_ptr&lt;int&gt; b(a); // a.use_count() == b.use_count() == 2
int * p = a.release();
// Who owns p now? b will still call delete on it in its destructor.</pre>
</blockquote>
<p>[Provided by Peter Dimov]</p>
<p><b>Q.</b> Why doesn't <b>shared_ptr</b> provide (your pet feature here)?<br>
<b>A.</b> Because (your pet feature here) would mandate a reference counted (or a link-list, or ...) implementation. This is not the intent.
[Provided by Peter Dimov]<br>
[Provided by Peter Dimov]</p>
<p><br>
</p>
<hr>
<p>Revised <!--webbot bot="Timestamp" S-Type="EDITED" S-Format="%d %B, %Y" startspan -->11 January, 2002<!--webbot bot="Timestamp" i-checksum="38439" endspan -->