"Phil Nash" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > [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! > > Err.. but just to be sure, are you saying this in support of smart_resource?
Yes. My point was that even something "so simple" as memory can not always sensibly be managed purely by a smart *pointer* --- you need a resource manager for the handle. Anthony -- Anthony Williams Senior Software Engineer, Beran Instruments Ltd. Remove NOSPAM when replying, for timely response. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
