From: Rene Rivera (grafikrobot_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-08-02 15:34:00
Milutin Jovanovic wrote:
> I finally decided to switch to boost from my own implementation of some
> helper classes, and I noticed that scoped_ptr and scoped_array in boost lack
> the release method(). I had to fall back to std::auto_ptr.
>
> However, this seems like such a basic and fundamental problem that I have
> started to fear that I am missing something obvious... The usage I got used
> to was something like this:
>
> {
> scoped_ptr<A> temp( new A() );
> verify( temp.get() ); // might throw
> store_in_a_very_special_place( temp.get() ); // might throw; and I
> should keep ownership if thrown
> temp.release();
> }
>
> I though this was good practice to make code exception safe. Sure I could do
> it with try-catch but that gets messy if I allocate multiple instances etc.
Try writing it as:
{
shared_ptr<A> temp( new A() );
verify( temp ); // might throw
store_in_a_very_special_place( temp ); // might throw; and I
should keep ownership if thrown
}
It's less code and it's safer. But if you must use scoped_ptr another
alternative would be:
{
scoped_ptr<A> temp( new A() );
verify( *temp ); // might throw
store_in_a_very_special_place( *temp ); // might throw; and I
should keep ownership if thrown
}
> So the question is:
>
> 1) is there something wrong with the concept of release()?
> 2) if release() is not evil, is there any other reason why is it not in
> boost::scoped_*?
See the FAQ for this at the bottom of the scoped_ptr docs
<http://boost.org/libs/smart_ptr/scoped_ptr.htm>.
-- -- Grafik - Don't Assume Anything -- Redshift Software, Inc. - http://redshift-software.com -- rrivera/acm.org - grafik/redshift-software.com -- 102708583/icq - grafikrobot/aim - grafikrobot/yahoo