- Weak pointers to objects not managed by a shared_ptr - 3 Updates
- static vector (c style) - 2 Updates
| wtholliday@gmail.com: Jan 15 05:45PM -0800 http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_57_0/libs/smart_ptr/sp_techniques.html#weak_without_shared Is this as dangerous as it looks? After you lock the weak_ptr to use the object, the object could be destructed and you're left with a dangling shared_ptr. - Taylor |
| "Öö Tiib" <ootiib@hot.ee>: Jan 16 06:21AM -0800 > http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_57_0/libs/smart_ptr/sp_techniques.html#weak_without_shared > Is this as dangerous as it looks? No. > After you lock the weak_ptr to use the object, > the object could be destructed and you're left with a dangling shared_ptr. You can check in destructor of X that 'this_.use_count() == 1' if you feel worried. When it is not then there is apparent logic defect somewhere and so X may blow up the application with message suggesting to fix the defect ASAP. |
| wtholliday@gmail.com: Jan 16 09:07AM -0800 On Friday, January 16, 2015 at 6:21:51 AM UTC-8, Öö Tiib wrote: > You can check in destructor of X that 'this_.use_count() == 1' if you feel worried. > When it is not then there is apparent logic defect somewhere and so X may blow > up the application with message suggesting to fix the defect ASAP. Good point! Thanks! |
| Christopher Pisz <nospam@notanaddress.com>: Jan 15 06:57PM -0600 On 1/15/2015 2:25 AM, jacob navia wrote: > not like or understand. That's why you do not want to discuss here > anything. > What could you possible say? I've got about 15 years left before I don't care anymore what happens and what the technology is. I'm no spring chicken, but I am not clinging to what I did in 1970 either. I already have another generation wanting to talk to me about reflection, NuGet, class extensions, and other things I haven't had the pleasure of bringing into my bubble. The difference is that they are .NET programmers and they program their .NET projects. I am not claiming my C++ code is .NET, would work in .NET, is more efficient than .NET, and they aren't claiming anything similar. There is no "C++ is valid .NET code" argument to be had. I don't go into their projects and litter them with bugs floundering around without knowing their way of doing things. If I need to go and edit something, I will gladly go get the 20 something year old developer and tell him, "I am not sure if this is the right way of doing it or not in your .NET project, so I wanted you to take a look." I do not turn to them in arrogance and say things like, "Humph, this whole reflection business can't be very efficient! I don't think we should ever use this in our code. Let's instead embed class IDs in every class we write and make up an encoding system so we can squeeze it into 5 bytes or less. We did that in 1995 and it worked great." http://christopherpisz.ddns.net/Programming/CPlusPlu/WhatIsCSlashCplusPlus.aspx |
| David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no>: Jan 16 10:38AM +0100 On 16/01/15 01:57, Christopher Pisz wrote: > class we write and make up an encoding system so we can squeeze it into > 5 bytes or less. We did that in 1995 and it worked great." > http://christopherpisz.ddns.net/Programming/CPlusPlu/WhatIsCSlashCplusPlus.aspx <http://christopherpisz.ddns.net/Programming/CPlusPlus/WhatIsCSlashCplusPlus.aspx> (I haven't read the page yet, but I will do so.) |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to comp.lang.c+++unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment