> -----Original Message----- > From: Phil Nash [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, February 20, 2003 1:13 PM > To: Boost mailing list > Subject: Re: [boost] Re: smart_ptr vs smart_resource > > > [Anthony Williams] > > On Windows, for example, you can use GlobalAlloc to > allocate some memory, > and > > you get an HGLOBAL back --- a handle to the memory. You need to call > > GlobalLock with that handle to get a pointer to the memory > which you can > > actually use. The resource manager therefore needs to keep > track of the > > handle, rather than the pointer (which may be different > after different > calls > > to GlobalLock, if there has been an intervening > GlobalUnlock). Indeed, the > > pointer to the locked memory is essentially a separate > resource, acquired > with > > GlobalLock() and released with GlobalUnlock. It would be > sensible to be > able > > to use the same framework for both the handle and the pointer. > > This sounds like a perfect case where using a smart_PTR would be very > confusing, maybe dangerously so!
The only place where you will see usage of the name smart_ptr is somewhere deep in library code: typedef smart_ptr <...> GlobalMemoryHandler; After that you will use non-confusing name GlobalMemoryHandler. Gennadiy. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
