<stuff snipped> > >One more suggestion: naked pointers are evil. Naked pointers in an STL >container are doubly evil. Wrap that pointer in a boost::shared_ptr. Memory >is automatically delete-d as the list goes out of scope.
IMHO wasting cycles mainating reference counts when I know the lifetime of an item and who is responsible for calling free or delete (depending on which was used in the frist instance) is even worse than using bare pointers. I would apply the same statement to C++ automagically copying things for me without a good reason to do so. In my experience if you do not know who has a reference to an object and what the scope of those references are the code is almost certaintly wrong anyway. Heavy STL users might not be so lucky but that may be just my prejudice. I often want a variantion on a structure on an unusual operation to be particularly fast so end up deciding STL is unsuitable and doing it manually instead. I think this results in faster and cleaner code in most cases. Of coure my view might be due to PRG propaganda and PRG are not OO fans. PRG, aka the Oxford computer science department, are keen on formal methods and introduced various formal methods, including CSP. Yes, I know there is a certain amount of flame bait here. I will evn add to it by saying that the UML descirption is dangeruous ambiguous and the use of UML can only obfusciate any problem. Objects sending messages to each other are very nasty to analyse and UML just about makes it impossiblke by being vague on some critical points. Be warned that I have some reasons for the UML deflamation :-) -- Duncan (-: "software industry, the: unique industry where selling substandard goods is legal and you can charge extra for fixing the problems."
