Hi Robert, I understand your point of view and agree adding too much ref_ptr<>s can affect performance. Well I'll keep that in mind for future submissions! And about scoped_array... I just pray for having these (and much more) in C++ standard soon! ;)
Thanks for merging. See you soon for another submission! BTW, what is the status of proxy images? (I don't remember!) Sukender PVLE - Lightweight cross-platform game engine - http://pvle.sourceforge.net/ ----- "Robert Osfield" <[email protected]> a écrit : > Hi Sukender, > > On Mon, Jan 11, 2010 at 4:00 PM, Sukender <[email protected]> wrote: > > Well, maybe left/right files were inverted during comparison? > > I can only think that's what I did, as I normally have the changed > file on the left, original file on the right. Although I would have > thought I would have picked that up as new about the introduced of > the > ref_ptr<> being your change... > > > Anyway, I'm glad to see it's okay. > > Most of the time I get there in the end :-) > > > And about RAII, you're right: there are thousands of lines to be > changed the same way... It's a long-term task! > > Actually I'm not to worried about putting ref_ptr<>'s everywhere, in > fact, in many places I absolutely don't want to use them in the OSG > for efficiency reasons, and if you know what you are doing > ref_ptr<>'s > don't always add extra safety w.r.t memory management. If you > expecting threading issues or exceptions being thrown then the need > for ref_ptr<> goes up. > > For general users I'd recommend "if in doubt use a ref_ptr<>" or > "always use a ref_ptr<> unless your are 100% certain it's safe". As > the author of the OSG's ref counting and smart pointers I should be > able to spot the times when it's OK to just use C*'s with the OSG, so > I'm quite happy to make a decision on a case by case basis. > > > I've replaced the new/delete with scoped_array<> (auto_ptr<> was a > good idea, but it does not support arrays), and added .valid() / > .get() calls. I just hope scoped_array<> won't conflict with next C++ > standard(s) (in TR2?), or else we'll need to add a native support > detection. > > Here is the file, against rev. 10939. > > These changes look good, now merged and submitted to svn/trunk. You > did miss the other new [] that wasn't cleaned up, so I've added the > use of scoped_array here as well. Although I can't help feel that > scoped_array itself is a bit of overkill for replacing two lines of > delete []; just on the basis that it's robust in the presence of a > possible exception... one has to wonder about the now having to > maintain scoped_array as it has many more lines of code that could be > potentially buggy or non portable. In boost we trust I guess :-) > > Robert. > _______________________________________________ > osg-submissions mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org _______________________________________________ osg-submissions mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openscenegraph.org/listinfo.cgi/osg-submissions-openscenegraph.org
