First of all: I really hate plain pointers so I am probably biased when it
comes to judge the benefits of implementations using pointers.
The problem is, we currently need pointers in order to use virtual
functions (references are not acceptable, since we can't put them in
containers for instan
Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| First of all: I really hate plain pointers so I am probably biased when it
| comes to judge the benefits of implementations using pointers.
|
| The problem is, we currently need pointers in order to use virtual
| functions (references are not acceptab
> Look at the boost/boost/smart_ptr.hpp
Which of the classes do you mean?
I don't want the wrapper to look like a pointer to the object but
rather like the object itself...
Andre'
--
André Pönitz [EMAIL PROTECTED]
* Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010222 18:24]:
>
> I think using this idiom we could save a lot of pain. Most classes that do
> not have any pointer members do not need copy constructors, assigment
> operators or destructors, so the mistakes are less likely... Not to mention
> memory leaks..
> The minor point is that you add the overhead of handling virtual
> functions, while this is not so great, it should be rememebered.
Which overhead over the original version do you mean?
Original:
definition: derived * ptr;
call:ptr->print()
1. deref ptr and get its vta
* Andre Poenitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [010222 19:13]:
> > The minor point is that you add the overhead of handling virtual
> > functions, while this is not so great, it should be rememebered.
>
> Which overhead over the original version do you mean?
I didn't get the context of mathed with its virt
