From -1000719129716930036 X-Google-Thread: f78e5,480a31feed3c6a1b X-Google-Attributes: gidf78e5,public X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit Path: g2news1.google.com!news3.google.com!news2.google.com!proxad.net!newsfeed.stueberl.de!newsfeed.vmunix.org!peer-uk.news.demon.net!kibo.news.demon.net!news.demon.co.uk!demon!stump.algebra.com!devnull From: SeeWebsiteForEmail@moderncppdesign.com ("Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email)") Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Subject: Re: boost::shared_ptr revisited again Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:51:22 GMT Organization: Computer Science & Engineering, U of Washington, Seattle Lines: 28 Sender: mail2news@demon.net Approved: fjh@cs.mu.oz.au (Fergus Henderson , moderator of comp.std.c++) Message-ID: References: <4299DE64.40403@poczta.onet.pl><3g55jqFajuhcU1@news.dfncis.de> <1118144437.192255.257840@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> <1118319488.569987 NNTP-Posting-Host: news.news.demon.net Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: news.demon.co.uk 1118411487 9210 158.152.254.254 (10 Jun 2005 13:51:27 GMT) X-Complaints-To: abuse@demon.net NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2005 13:51:27 +0000 (UTC) X-Nntp-Posting-Host: parakeet.ee.washington.edu X-Robomod: STUMP, ichudov@algebra.com (Igor Chudov) X-User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.2 (X11/20050317) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at cs.mu.OZ.AU X-Path: comp-std-cpp-robomod!not-for-mail X-Received: (from fjh@localhost) by mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU (8.12.10+Sun/8.12.9/Submit) id j5ADpMNQ027422; Fri, 10 Jun 2005 23:51:22 +1000 (EST) X-Authentication-Warning: mulga.cs.mu.OZ.AU: fjh set sender to devnull@stump.algebra.com using -f X-Newsgroups: comp.std.c++ Xref: g2news1.google.com comp.std.c++:5060 kanze@gabi-soft.fr wrote: > Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote: > Wouldn't "pointer to an unusable object" be a better definition? > The object might be unusable because the memory underlying it > has been freed, but if the memory is in an invalid state because > the programmer as called dispose(), or whatever his equivalent > of a destructor is, then it is just as unusable. > > About the only difference is that with garbage collection, the > object can reliably set flag, which it verifies at the start of > each function, and signal the error in a reliable and defined > manner. But unless the object actually does this, I don't > really see too much difference between the two. Um... memory safety? That no access can obliterate something it's not supposed to? :o) Can't believe you said that James :o)). Andrei --- [ comp.std.c++ is moderated. To submit articles, try just posting with ] [ your news-reader. If that fails, use mailto:std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu ] [ --- Please see the FAQ before posting. --- ] [ FAQ: http://www.jamesd.demon.co.uk/csc/faq.html ]