From: "Daniel Frey" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Peter Dimov wrote: > > > > make_X(args) is typically equivalent to X<...>(args). However, make_shared > > is not equivalent to the corresponding constructor. The constructor throws > > an exception when the argument has expired(), and make_shared returns an > > empty shared_ptr. > > Which is surprising, at least to me. OK, I'm sure it's documented, but > documentation aside the code (and the interface) should speak for > itself. You seem to think that the function's name is the reason for > this surprise, but I don't think that any name will do in this case.
Perhaps, but some names are "less bad". It is a convention that make_* names are constructor aliases; this is not the case here, so I conclude that make_shared isn't a particularly good choice. > The > problem is that from a semantic point of view, this function will > construct a smart pointer with a type, which is deduced from the > function's argument. The argument's value is only taken if it is not > expired, else the default value will be taken. get_shared_ptr doesn't > express this to me and I can hardly imagine that any identifier will do. >From semantic point of view, it's more like "This function will obtain a shared_ptr to the object identified by the weak_ptr argument. If there is no such object, an empty shared_ptr is returned." To me, get_shared_ptr seems to express this a bit better than make_shared. But I might be wrong. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
