- You always have A owns A_impl owns B owns B_impl refs A (what your
original code seems to say), in this case B_impl contains an RRef<A> instead of a DynObj<A> and everything works
I'd like to hear whether that's your case or not.
No. A and B are completely symmetrical. They each equally "own" the other.
Not possible. This has nothing to do with NoPtr or boost::shared_ptr, it's even true for raw pointers. E.g. ...
Just look at my Node example -- you'll see that there is indeed complete symmetry of ownership. There is a cyclic ownership graph -- hence the trouble with traditional smart pointers.
However, I don't understand what NoPtr *does*.
Simplistically, - DynObj destroys what it owns when it goes out of scope, is reset or
acquires something new, and notifies any RRefs linked to it
- RRef refers to a DynObj, but asserts that DynObj still exists when
accessed
Note that I said simplistically.
OK, thanks for the explanation -- I think I understand.
- Chuck Messenger
_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
