On Friday, Aug 29, 2003, at 10:48 America/Denver, E. Gladyshev wrote:
--- Gregory Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
[...]
Does it make sense?
Not to me. Sounds like a very broken allocator design.
If I assume that I going to have a full control over my allocator
instances (not a very unusual assumption), there is nothing
broken here. Whether it is broken or not should be discussed
in a specific context.
Anyway, my point was that the shared_ptr( Data* p, Deleter ) has
a *potential* problem that was not obvious even to to some people here.
(it may not be obivous to other developers).
It's still not obvious to me. But I suspect I have yet to understand
your example.
Like I said, I don't think that it is a big deal as soon
as we state a set of requirements for boost
"deleters"/allocators. (STL standard has).
The "Common Requirements" section in the shared_ptr description
doesn't seem to have them.
The whole point of a shared_ptr is to invoke its deleter when the
last shared_ptr to an object goes away. If intervening allocations
cause the deleter to be invalid then either the deleter is broken or
the code that did the allocations is broken.
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
