From: Philippe A. Bouchard (philippeb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-20 20:11:54
Hi people,
I have made some decisions upon shifted_ptr. I am going to finish
documenting by the end of the week because I am sure at 100% it will be ok:
- I am going to remove ownership;
- I am going to use counted_base instead if shifted_header::count for easier
shared_ptr<> casts;
- I have found an acceptable keyword to replace the "new" paradox:
"record<T>(...)"... the antonym of "delete";
- I am not going to implement the extra counter to "indicator" nodes (for
those who know what I am talking about) because I do not have enough
ressources to distinguish heap / stack variables in a standard way.
So the smart pointers will look like the following:
shared_ptr<int> p = new int(9);
shifted_ptr<int> q = record<int>(9);
p(q); // Ok
q(p); // You decide whether it is worth the complexity of its implementation
Please note that I didn't wanted to use "make" or "create" because those are
used too much frequently as for the "new" paradox.
Philippe