From: Alexander Terekhov (terekhov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-09 10:28:12
Peter Dimov wrote:
[...]
> That's shared_ptr::reset. p_ is not necessarily a shared_ptr. The technique
> describes how a deleter can be used to hold another smart pointer.
>
> The code as written assumes that p_.reset() is nothrow. The catch(...)
> suggestion is for the case where p_.reset() only gives the basic guarantee.
Show me please a "smart" pointer with basic reset().
[...]
> > also wrote "~weak_ptr(); Effects: Destroys this weak_ptr but has no
> > effect on the object its stored pointer points to.".
>
> That is correct. ~weak_ptr does not destroy the object (invoke the deleter),
> but it can destroy the deleter, if *this is the last remaining reference to
> it.
Yeah, but this, in turn, might "release" another smart pointer if a
deleter happens to hold another smart pointer that doesn't offer the
nothrow guarantee for its reset(), right?
regards,
alexander.