"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> If eating the cake means "not having to support unmanaged adoption",
>> I don't think so ;-)
>
> Well, I meant support both, of course. How hard would it be to create
> the generic managed c'tor?
Search me!
>> > For default storage, this is a no-throw operation. Let's say we're
>> > moving p into a counted pointer. Now ownership has to allocate
>> > a count, and might throw in the process. If it does, we either have
>> > to clean up p, or we have to stuff the toothpaste back into the
>> > tube.
>>
>> Both highly imprecise notions; I don't know what either means for sure
>> in this context.
>
> Substitute 'p' for 'p's resource', and maybe it will make more sense.
Not really.
- by "clean up" you mean "delete?"
- by "stuff stuff the toothpaste back..." you mean "move p back into
the source pointer?"
>> > I see that shared_ptr solves this by violating RAII.
>>
>> I don't know what this means either. RAII is not something you can
>> "violate". It's a technique or idiom.
>
> By "violate RAII", I mean, use default construction with a try-catch
> block rather than the initializer list. The "RAII philosophy" that you've
> been preaching for the last week is that you almost never need a catch
> block if you use RAII properly.
I don't think I ever said that. It's usually true, and it's good that
you noticed, though.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
