220 28950 article Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: mihailnajdenov@gmail.com Newsgroups: gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals Subject: Re: Re: Is World's Dumbest Pointer still on the table?!? Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:16:39 -0700 (PDT) Lines: 79 Approved: news@gmane.org Message-ID: References: <8a6731f7-1c9b-482d-817e-c2374fc9ae1b@isocpp.org> <7d817482-e7c3-4724-9501-738d4c9083d7@isocpp.org> <4d9aa487-c824-490a-ae3a-ac90e2a2db3d@isocpp.org> <080a6163-4350-4246-a2d6-a3ae7f6db473@isocpp.org> <72ad1e5d-b7c0-414e-a9a1-ac56a43dd51c@isocpp.org> Reply-To: std-proposals@isocpp.org NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="----=_Part_2496_1070690112.1476818199825" X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1476818230 10347 195.159.176.226 (18 Oct 2016 19:17:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2016 19:17:10 +0000 (UTC) To: ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals Original-X-From: std-proposals+bncBCUJ3A7GRAPRBGPKTHAAKGQE3FJ3OCA@isocpp.org Tue Oct 18 21:16:58 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from mail-yw0-f200.google.com ([209.85.161.200]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1bwZsO-0007Hq-R8 for gclcip-std-proposals@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 21:16:41 +0200 Original-Received: by mail-yw0-f200.google.com with SMTP id j134sf5816064ywb.6 for ; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:16:43 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=isocpp-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=Sm59m0bcZ+yZIAquVEaRtN9gIP6R6x/8v9vgakmN40M=; b=RbM7Pp1GC5EMn3aLI5CiRDnOpv1Q6KuN8srAT/a7prReBvdNJi2nCYmTZc958Dcvkv PiOCdL5OdmGKOOLQp8BT/3X5vp5oMkLuyg0p6Jm5MumVXFP6nTEUQ0cSBDYJ4wCqB6sF t5JPU7O3cl0M7oqi4qF6+FjT61YfxlE+Qq+aa4X51MDlf1VMu3ESQ5frbNLPfMNa6L5A KwNgpZKh0A7AXg3Gb93sJ1bMX7GsVNZ7hD5bW8Wr94gDNKqpBdwxO+eVf65RuQuuYzm7 1DewDpFgyMSSvUhZQRuqqBHVUIhwY70AjkyeUfbpgl2eo0Sjksa7kPJkmufZOZ9ZXE1N LIbA== DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references:subject:mime-version :x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list:list-id :x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help:list-archive :list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=Sm59m0bcZ+yZIAquVEaRtN9gIP6R6x/8v9vgakmN40M=; b=VCa5gZfpfDbIAkM78iLDXYDbfVh7NPyNtelwItdDp9EXqnhOJ3GpY8/JR+xchrfl5W Ju1NavyExdeeSFZMnMtOLN9FOPb2hQRN04hc9o7r8bZoe6w3l8PvAew92Q1o+V3wfA0e 6QXFfSRjctUoSUMF4Cqnoe0I1fhyL2N126WqmYR5wh+Dhqn9feQ5c12iPA5xhQSixT8p PWdiAjNlniTTtH/maDq6m6e5tI9LiV5aPzd6rHNUHEBkkS7+GX5Psg6ah/LRFFPSFkCs moEP6qQ0IYV0br2lV4OL4HaHNjTT8Bf6NawY/Ti3J8mUXl7xBA5zwSRyPPkIuJcefkSS thvA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:message-id:in-reply-to:references :subject:mime-version:x-original-sender:reply-to:precedence :mailing-list:list-id:x-spam-checked-in-group:list-post:list-help :list-archive:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe; bh=Sm59m0bcZ+yZIAquVEaRtN9gIP6R6x/8v9vgakmN40M=; b=iU6GQXTr4Olok+7VTqmmGASRZMffKUQQop4wuGTyYx9v1ZnW1GeJHU0SBqbI+zLBdW +k9rusydiV3IZQbQfIyxU0YrMU2mpQcjsq2Xd4A3595MKM9ZTnYDZEQrxM1YFeUxsg0i eS0MsWtttLbYwl4b558Z3WTeWQJDV+x5/C1W8/Wc2GUorToeh5eC9dlT3yHSrgVugaDa ufBmDF6YqytlCJ7PzXc0Wo3pPuMfWJfvr0zIZtpJM3tlJ5N40g3rGyuuimqMmt7Ukg0h z9db6kYifiVN2yeCIp7Lebt47K2CSdmrWJq2CRortyQ/CEsvvUkrLfnTFJQLXFiVAYmZ LVJg== X-Gm-Message-State: AA6/9RmQJdQzcsZVZT8+c+ci2gOw5fRtAa0j36zPniplTPeJo4X3A5o/N2A9BqTUg1qXsA== X-Received: by 10.129.83.2 with SMTP id h2mr660578ywb.89.1476818202830; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:16:42 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: std-proposals@isocpp.org Original-Received: by 10.36.121.13 with SMTP id z13ls3588905itc.9.canary; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:16:41 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.36.225.205 with SMTP id n196mr277068ith.0.1476818201392; Tue, 18 Oct 2016 12:16:41 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: X-Original-Sender: MihailNajdenov@gmail.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list std-proposals@isocpp.org; contact std-proposals+owners@isocpp.org List-ID: X-Google-Group-Id: 399137483710 List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.comp.lang.c++.isocpp.proposals:28950 Archived-At: ------=_Part_2496_1070690112.1476818199825 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_Part_2497_588594647.1476818199825" ------=_Part_2497_588594647.1476818199825 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 8:06:42 PM UTC+3, Ville Voutilainen wrote: > > ... > > All else is subject to the semantics of any possible custom deleter > provided, and none of that nonsense > on cppreference applies to such custom deleters. The standard doesn't > make such incorrect claims about > how unique_ptr works. > *No matter* what the deleter does, reset is added to make it explicit, the deleter will be called both on the old object (if any) and at some later time on the new one (if any). The sole reason reset, as a function, exist is to donate this functionality. No other reason. With shared ptr is practically the same similar, just the deleter call might be delayed, again *no matter what the deleter does.* This is, until observer_ptr comes and reintroduce the very same ambiguity, reset solved - does it call my (magic) deleter or does it not. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to std-proposals+unsubscribe@isocpp.org. To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/c12566c2-5815-41ff-a57f-1cf7b5c49916%40isocpp.org. ------=_Part_2497_588594647.1476818199825 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On Tuesday, October 18, 2016 at 8:06:42 PM UTC+3, = Ville Voutilainen wrote:
...
All else is subject to the semantics of any possible custom deleter provided, and none of that nonsense
on cppreference applies to such c= ustom deleters. The standard doesn't
make such incorrect claims abo= ut
how unique_ptr works.

No mat= ter what the deleter does, reset is added to make it explicit,=C2=A0the= deleter will be called both=C2=A0on the old object (if any)=C2=A0and at so= me later time on the new one (if any).

The sole re= ason=C2=A0reset, as a function,=C2=A0exist is to donate this functionality.= No other reason.
With shared ptr is=C2=A0practically the same=C2= =A0similar, just the deleter call might be delayed, again no matter what= the deleter does.

This is, until observer_ptr= comes and reintroduce the very same ambiguity, reset solved - does it call= my (magic) deleter=C2=A0or does it not.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &= quot;ISO C++ Standard - Future Proposals" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to std-proposa= ls+unsubscribe@isocpp.org.
To post to this group, send email to std-proposals@isocpp.org.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.= com/a/isocpp.org/d/msgid/std-proposals/c12566c2-5815-41ff-a57f-1cf7b5c49916= %40isocpp.org.
------=_Part_2497_588594647.1476818199825-- ------=_Part_2496_1070690112.1476818199825-- .