Related
More and more I hear, that I should use smart pointers instead of naked pointers, despite I have effective memory leak system implemented.
What is the correct programming approach on using smart pointers please? Should they really be used, even if I check memory leaks on allocated memory blocks? Is it still up to me? If I do not use them, can this be considered as programming weakness?
If the smart pointers(ex: std::auto_ptr) are strongly recommended, should I use them instead of every naked pointer?
You should use RAII to handle all resource allocations.
Smart pointers are just one common special case of that rule.
And smart pointers are more than just shared_ptr. There are different smart pointers with different ownership semantics. Use the one that suits your needs. (The main ones are scoped_ptr, shared_ptr, weak_ptr and auto_ptr/unique_ptr (prefer the latter where available). Depending on your compiler, they may be available in the standard library, as part of TR1, or not at all, in which case you can get them through the Boost libraries.
And yes, you should absolutely use these. It costs you nothing (if done correctly, you lose zero performance), and it gains you a lot (memory and other resources are automatically freed, and you don't have to remember to handle it manually, and your code using the resource gets shorter and more concise)
Note that not every pointer usage represents some kind of resource ownership, and so not all raw pointer usage is wrong. If you simply need to point to an object owned by someone else, a raw pointer is perfectly suitable. But if you own the object, then you should take proper ownership of it, either by giving the class itself RAII semantics, or by wrapping it in a smart pointer.
You can't just blindly substitute std::auto_ptr for every raw pointer. In particular, auto_ptr transfers ownership on assignment, which is great for some purposes but definitely not for others.
There is a real reason there are several varieties of smart pointers (e.g., shared_ptr, weak_ptr, auto_ptr/unique_ptr, etc.) Each fulfills a different purpose. One major weakness of a "raw" pointer is that it has so many different uses (and has that versatility largely because it does little or nothing to assist in any one purpose). Smart pointers tend to be more specialized, which means they can be more intelligent about doing one thing well, but also means you have to pick the right one for the job or it'll end up dong the wrong things entirely.
Smart pointers allows to define automatically the life-time of objects it refers to. That's the main thing to understand.
So, no, you shouldn't use smart pointers everywhere, only when you want to automate life-time of your objects instead of having, for example, an object managing those objects inside from birth to death. It's like any tool : it solves specific kind of problems, not all problems.
For each object, you should think about the life cycle it will go through, then choose one of the simplest correct and efficient solution. Sometimes it will be shared_ptr because you want the object to be used by several components and to be automatically destroyed once not used anymore. Sometimes you need the object only in the current scope/parent-object, so scoped_ptr might be more appropriate. Sometimes you need only one owner of the instance, so unique_ptr is appropriate. Maybe you'll find cases where you know an algorithm that might define/automate the lifetime of an object, so you'll write your own smart pointer for it.
For example of opposite case, using pools forbids you to use smart_ptr. Naked pointers might be a more welcome simple and efficient solution in this particular (but common in embedded software) case.
See this answer (from me) for more explainations : https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/57581/in-c-is-it-a-reflection-of-poor-software-design-if-objects-are-deleted-manuall/57611#57611
Should they really be used, even if I check memory leaks on allocated memory blocks?
YES
The whole purpose of smart pointers is, it help you implement RAII(SBRM), which basically lets the resource itself take the responsibility of its deallocation and the resource doesn't have to rely on you explicitly remembering to deallocate it.
If I do not use them, can this be considered as programming weakness?
NO,
It is not a weakness but a inconvenience or unnecessary hassle to explicitly manage the resources by yourself if you are not using Smart pointers(RAII). The purpose of smart pointers to implement RAII is to provide efficient and hassle free way of handling resources and you would just not be making use of it if you are not using it. It is highly recommended to use it purely for the numerous advantages it provides.
If the smart pointers(ex: std::auto_ptr)are strongly recommended, should I use them instead of every naked pointer?
YES
You should use smart pointers wherever possible because simply there is no drawback of using them and just numerous advantages to use them.
Don't use auto_ptr though because it is already deprecated!! There are various other smart pointers available that you can use depending on the requirement. You can refer the link above to know more about them.
It's a tricky question, and the fact that there is currently a mode to
use smart pointers everywhere doesn't make things any easier. Smart
pointers can help in certain situations, but you certainly can't just
use them everywhere, without thinking. There are many different types
of smart pointers, and you have to think about which one is appropriate
in every case; and even then, most of your pointers (at least in typical
applications in the domains I've worked in) should be raw pointers.
Regardless of the approach, several points are worth mentionning:
Don't use dynamic allocation unless you have to. In many
applications, the only things that need to be allocated dynamically
are objects with specific lifetimes, determined by the application
logic. Don't use dynamic allocation for objects with value semantics.
With regards to entity object, those which model something in the
application domain: these should be created and destructed according
to the program logic. Irregardless of whether there are pointers to
them or not. If their destruction causes a problem, then you have an
error in your program logic somewhere (not handling an event correctly,
etc.), and using smart pointers won't change anything.
A typical example of an entity object might be client connection in a
server, is created when the client connects, and destructed when the
client disconnects. In many such cases, the most appropriate management
will be a delete this, since it is the connection which will receive
the disconnection event. (Objects which hold pointers to such an object
will have to register with it, in order to be informed of its
destruction. But such pointers are purely for navigation, and shouldn't
be smart pointers.)
What you'll usually find when people try to use smart pointers
everywhere is that memory leaks; typical reference counters don't
handle cycles, and of course, typical applications are full of cycles: a
Connection will point to the Client which is connected to it, and
the Client will contain a list of Connection where it is connected.
And if the smart pointer is boost::shared_ptr, there's also a definite
risk of dangling pointers: it's far to easy to create two
boost::shared_ptr to the same address (which results in two counters
for the references).
If the smart pointers(ex: std::auto_ptr) are strongly recommended, should I use them instead of every naked pointer?
In my opinion, yes, you should it for every pointer that you own.
Here are my ideas on resource management in C++ (feel free to disagree):
Good resource management requires thinking in terms of ownership.
Resources should be managed managed by objects (RAII).
Usually single ownership is preferred over shared ownership.
Ideally the creator is also the owner of the object. (However, there are situations where ownership transfer is in order.)
This leads to the following practices:
Make boost::scoped_ptr the default choice for local and member variables. Do keep in mind that using scoped_ptr for member variables will make your class non-copyable. If you don't want this see next point.
Use boost::shared_ptr for containers or to enable shared ownership:
// Container of MyClass* pointers:
typedef boost::shared_ptr<MyClass> MyClassPtr;
std::vector<MyClassPtr> vec;
The std::auto_ptr (C++03) can be used for ownership transfer. For example as the return value of factory or clone methods:
// Factory method returns auto_ptr
std::auto_ptr<Button> button = Button::Create(...);
// Clone method returns auto_ptr
std::auto_ptr<MyClass> copy = obj->clone();
// Use release() to transfer the ownership to a scoped_ptr or shared_ptr
boost::scoped_ptr<MyClass> copy(obj->clone().release());
If you need to store a pointer that you don't own then you can use a raw pointer:
this->parent = inParentObject;
In certain situations a boost::weak_pointer is required. See the documentation for more information.
In general you should prefer smart pointers, but there are a couple of exceptions.
If you need to recast a pointer, for example to provide a const version, that becomes nearly impossible with smart pointers.
Smart pointers are used to control object lifetime. Often when you are passing a pointer to a function, the function will not affect the lifetime; the function does not try to delete the object, and it does not store a copy of the pointer. The calling code cannot delete the object until the function returns. In that case a dumb pointer is perfectly acceptable.
Yes. Assuming you have C++0x available to you, use unique_ptr or shared_ptr (as appropriate) to wrap all the raw pointers you new up. With the help of make_shared, shared_ptr is highly performant. If you don't need reference counting then unique_ptr will get you better perf. Both of them behave properly in collections and other circumstances where auto_ptr was a dumb pointer.
Using smart pointers (shared_ptr or otherwise) EVERYWHERE is a bad idea. It's good to use shared_ptr to manage the lifetime of objects/resources but it's not a good idea to pass them as parameters to functions etc. That increases the likelihood of circular references and other extremely hard to track bugs (Personal experience: Try figuring out who should not be holding onto a resource in 2 millions lines of code if every function invocation changes the reference count - you will end up thinking the guys who do this kind of thing are m***ns). Better to pass a raw pointer or a reference.
The situation is even worse when combined with lazy instantiation.
I would suggest that developers should know the lifecycle of the objects they write and use shared_ptr to control that (RAII) but not extend shared_ptr use beyond that.
I have a C++ application which makes extensively use of pointers to maintain quite complex data structures. The application performs mathematical simulations on huge data sets (which could take several GB of memory), and is compiled using Microsoft's Visual Studio 2010.
I am now reworking an important part of the application. To reduce errors (dangling pointers, memory leaks, ...) I would want to start using smart pointers. Sacrificing memory or performance is acceptible as long as it is limited.
In practice most of the classes are maintained in big pools (one pool per class) and although the classes can refer to each other, you could consider the pool as owner of all the instances of that class. However, if the pool decides to delete an instance, I don't want any of the other classes that still refers to the deleted instance to have a dangling pointer.
In another part I keep a collection of pointers to instances that are delivered by other modules in the application. In practice the other modules maintain ownership of the passed instance, but in some cases, modules don't want to take care of the ownership and just want to pass the instance to the collection, telling it "it's yours now, manage it".
What is the best way to start introducing smart pointers? Just replacing pointers [at random] with smart pointers doesn't seem a correct way, and probably doesn't deliver all the (or any of the) advantages of smart pointers. But what is a better method?
Which types of smart pointers should I further investigate? I sometimes use std::auto_ptr for the deallocation of locally allocated memory, but this seems to be deprected in C++0x. Is std::unique_ptr a better alternative? Or should I go straight to shared pointers or other types of smart pointers?
The question Replacing existing raw pointers with smart pointers seems similar but instead of asking how easy it is, I am asking what the best approach would be, and which kind of smart pointers are suited best.
Thanks in advance for your ideas and suggestions.
I recommend using unique_ptr when possible (this may require some program analysis) and shared_ptr when this is impossible. When in doubt, use a shared_ptr to maximize safety: when handing off control to a container, the reference count will simply go to two and then back to one and the container will eventually delete the associated object automatically. When performance becomes an issue, consider using boost::intrusive_ptr.
Here are the 3 varieties found in the new C++11 standard (unique_ptr replaces auto_ptr)
http://www.stroustrup.com/C++11FAQ.html#std-unique_ptr
http://www.stroustrup.com/C++11FAQ.html#std-shared_ptr
http://www.stroustrup.com/C++11FAQ.html#std-weak_ptr
You can read the text for each pointer and there is an explanation of when to use which in there. For local memory management unique_ptr is the choice. It is non-copyable but movable so as you move it around the receiver takes ownership of it.
Shared_ptr is used if you want to share an object instance around with no one really owning the object and to make sure it doesn't get deleted while someone still has a reference to it. Once the last user of an object destroys the shared_ptr container, the contained object will be deleted.
weak_ptr is used in conjunction with shared_ptr. It enables one to "lock" to see if the reference shared_ptr object still exists before trying to access the internal object.
In my current project I am using boost::shared_ptr quite extensively.
Recently my fellow team mates have also started using weak_ptr. I don't know which one to use and when.
Apart from this, what should I do if I want to convert weak_ptr to shared_ptr. Does putting a lock on weak_ptr to create a shared_ptr affect my code in other thread?
In general and summary,
Strong pointers guarantee their own validity. Use them, for example, when:
You own the object being pointed at; you create it and destroy it
You do not have defined behavior if the object doesn't exist
You need to enforce that the object exists.
Weak pointers guarantee knowing their own validity. Use them, for example, when:
You access it, but it's not yours.
You have defined behavior if the object doesn't exist
Lock() on a weak pointer returns a strong pointer; this is how you access the weak pointer. If the object is no longer valid (it's been deleted, etc), then the strong pointer will be NULL, otherwise, it will point at the object. You will need to check this.
It's set up this way so that you cannot accidentally delete the object while you're using it, because you've made a temporary (local) strong pointer, and thus garunteed the object's existence while that strong pointer remains. When you're done using the object, you generally let the strong pointer fall out of scope (or reassigning it), which then allows the object to be deleted. For multithreading, treat them with same care you treat other things that don't have built-in thread safety, noting that the guarantee I mentioned above will hold when multithreading. AFAIK they don't do anything special past that.
The boost shared pointers also have garbage-collector like features, since when the last strong pointer to an object goes away or points somewhere else, the object gets deleted.
There's also the performance and circular dependencies mentioned in the other answers.
Fundamentally, I would say that the boost shared pointer library allows you to not mess up putting together a program, but it is no substitute for taking the time to properly design your pointers, object ownerships and lifetimes. If you have such a design, you can use the library to enforce it. If you don't have such a design, you're likely to run into different problems than before.
Use weak_ptr when the objects you create contain cyclical references, i.e. shared_ptr to an object with a shared_ptr back to yourself. This is because shared_ptr cannot handle cyclical references - when both objects go out of scope, the mutual referencing means that they are not "garbage collected", so the memory is lost and you have a memory leak. Since weak_ptr does not increase the reference count, the cyclical reference problem does not occur. This also means in general that if you just want to take a pointer to something that is reference counted and do not want to increase its reference count, then use weak_ptr.
Otherwise, you can use shared_ptr.
For more information, check the Boost documentation.
Shared pointers implement reference counting, weak pointers do not affect reference counting and if you don't have shared pointers to an object, only weak pointers, the object gets deleted and the weak pointers now tell you that the object has been lost.
There are two reasons to use a weak pointer:
To eliminate the cost of reference count increase / decrease; however you shouldn't do this because it is error-prone and doesn't really save much time
In bookkeeping data structures, e.g. you have an index of all objects Foo that are "alive", i.e. used somewhere else, and you don't want to keep a Foo alive in the index if all the "real" uses have ended. This is the basic realistic use case for weak pointers. Of course others exist also.
So in general, my recommendation would be to use weak pointers only when you know that you want to let the referenced objects be deleted and want to detect that. In other cases use shared pointers (reference counting), or direct pointers, esp. in method local variables when you know that the objects are not going to get deleted. Also errorprone, though, but faster than shared pointers.
N.B. cyclical objects do not need weak pointers, you can use non-cooked, regular pointers instead in most properly constructed programs. Weak pointers less risky, though.
You should probably not be trying to use weak pointers at all unless you are trying to implement a garbage collector, which is not a hot idea in C++ because it's too hard to keep track of everything that could go wrong closely enough.
This question already has answers here:
What is a smart pointer and when should I use one?
(14 answers)
Closed 8 years ago.
I am programming with normal pointers, but I have heard about libraries like Boost that implement smart pointers. I have also seen that in Ogre3D rendering engine there is a deep use of shared pointers.
What exactly is the difference between the three, and should I stick on using just a type of them?
Sydius outlined the types fairly well:
Normal pointers are just that - they point to some thing in memory somewhere. Who owns it? Only the comments will let you know. Who frees it? Hopefully the owner at some point.
Smart pointers are a blanket term that cover many types; I'll assume you meant scoped pointer which uses the RAII pattern. It is a stack-allocated object that wraps a pointer; when it goes out of scope, it calls delete on the pointer it wraps. It "owns" the contained pointer in that it is in charge of deleteing it at some point. They allow you to get a raw reference to the pointer they wrap for passing to other methods, as well as releasing the pointer, allowing someone else to own it. Copying them does not make sense.
Shared pointers is a stack-allocated object that wraps a pointer so that you don't have to know who owns it. When the last shared pointer for an object in memory is destructed, the wrapped pointer will also be deleted.
How about when you should use them? You will either make heavy use of scoped pointers or shared pointers. How many threads are running in your application? If the answer is "potentially a lot", shared pointers can turn out to be a performance bottleneck if used everywhere. The reason being that creating/copying/destructing a shared pointer needs to be an atomic operation, and this can hinder performance if you have many threads running. However, it won't always be the case - only testing will tell you for sure.
There is an argument (that I like) against shared pointers - by using them, you are allowing programmers to ignore who owns a pointer. This can lead to tricky situations with circular references (Java will detect these, but shared pointers cannot) or general programmer laziness in a large code base.
There are two reasons to use scoped pointers. The first is for simple exception safety and cleanup operations - if you want to guarantee that an object is cleaned up no matter what in the face of exceptions, and you don't want to stack allocate that object, put it in a scoped pointer. If the operation is a success, you can feel free to transfer it over to a shared pointer, but in the meantime save the overhead with a scoped pointer.
The other case is when you want clear object ownership. Some teams prefer this, some do not. For instance, a data structure may return pointers to internal objects. Under a scoped pointer, it would return a raw pointer or reference that should be treated as a weak reference - it is an error to access that pointer after the data structure that owns it is destructed, and it is an error to delete it. Under a shared pointer, the owning object can't destruct the internal data it returned if someone still holds a handle on it - this could leave resources open for much longer than necessary, or much worse depending on the code.
the term "smart pointer" includes shared pointers, auto pointers, locking pointers and others. you meant to say auto pointer (more ambiguously known as "owning pointer"), not smart pointer.
Dumb pointers (T*) are never the best solution. They make you do explicit memory management, which is verbose, error prone, and sometimes nigh impossible. But more importantly, they don't signal your intent.
Auto pointers delete the pointee at destruction. For arrays, prefer encapsulations like vector and deque. For other objects, there's very rarely a need to store them on the heap - just use locals and object composition. Still the need for auto pointers arises with functions that return heap pointers -- such as factories and polymorphic returns.
Shared pointers delete the pointee when the last shared pointer to it is destroyed. This is useful when you want a no-brainer, open-ended storage scheme where expected lifetime and ownership can vary widely depending on the situation. Due to the need to keep an (atomic) counter, they're a bit slower than auto pointers. Some say half in jest that shared pointers are for people who can't design systems -- judge for yourself.
For an essential counterpart to shared pointers, look up weak pointers too.
Smart pointers will clean themselves up after they go out of scope (thereby removing fear of most memory leaks). Shared pointers are smart pointers that keep a count of how many instances of the pointer exist, and only clean up the memory when the count reaches zero. In general, only use shared pointers (but be sure to use the correct kind--there is a different one for arrays). They have a lot to do with RAII.
To avoid memory leaks you may use smart pointers whenever you can. There are basically 2 different types of smart pointers in C++
Reference counted (e.g. boost::shared_ptr / std::tr1:shared_ptr)
non reference counted (e.g. boost::scoped_ptr / std::auto_ptr)
The main difference is that reference counted smart pointers can be copied (and used in std:: containers) while scoped_ptr cannot. Non reference counted pointers have almost no overhead or no overhead at all. Reference counting always introduces some kind of overhead.
(I suggest to avoid auto_ptr, it has some serious flaws if used incorrectly)
To add a small bit to Sydius' answer, smart pointers will often provide a more stable solution by catching many easy to make errors. Raw pointers will have some perfromance advantages and can be more flexible in certain circumstances. You may also be forced to use raw pointers when linking into certain 3rd party libraries.
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.
Closed 10 years ago.
C++ is all about memory ownership - aka ownership semantics.
It is the responsibility of the owner of a chunk of dynamically allocated memory to release that memory. So the question really becomes who owns the memory.
In C++ ownership is documented by the type a raw pointer is wrapped inside thus in a good (IMO) C++ program it is very rare (rare, not never) to see raw pointers passed around (as raw pointers have no inferred ownership thus we can not tell who owns the memory and thus without careful reading of the documentation you can't tell who is responsible for ownership).
Conversely, it is rare to see raw pointers stored in a class each raw pointer is stored within its own smart pointer wrapper. (N.B.: If you don't own an object you should not be storing it because you can not know when it will go out of scope and be destroyed.)
So the question:
What type of ownership semantic have people come across?
What standard classes are used to implement those semantics?
In what situations do you find them useful?
Lets keep 1 type of semantic ownership per answer so they can be voted up and down individually.
Summary:
Conceptually, smart pointers are simple and a naive implementation is easy. I have seen many attempted implementations, but invariably they are broken in some way that is not obvious to casual use and examples. Thus I recommend always using well tested smart pointers from a library rather than rolling your own. std::auto_ptr or one of the Boost smart pointers seem to cover all my needs.
std::auto_ptr<T>:
Single person owns the object. Transfer of ownership is allowed.
Usage: This allows you to define interfaces that show the explicit transfer of ownership.
boost::scoped_ptr<T>
Single person owns the object. Transfer of ownership is NOT allowed.
Usage: Used to show explicit ownership. Object will be destroyed by destructor or when explicitly reset.
boost::shared_ptr<T> (std::tr1::shared_ptr<T>)
Multiple ownership. This is a simple reference counted pointer. When the reference count reaches zero, the object is destroyed.
Usage: When an object can have multiple owers with a lifetime that can not be determined at compile time.
boost::weak_ptr<T>:
Used with shared_ptr<T> in situations where a cycle of pointers may happen.
Usage: Used to stop cycles from retaining objects when only the cycle is maintaining a shared refcount.
Simple C++ Model
In most modules I saw, by default, it was assumed that receiving pointers was not receiving ownership. In fact, functions/methods abandoning ownership of a pointer were both very rare and explicitly expressed that fact in their documentation.
This model assumes that the user is owner only of what he/she explicitly allocates. Everything else is automatically disposed of (at scope exit, or through RAII). This is a C-like model, extended by the fact most pointers are owned by objects that will deallocate them automatically or when needed (at said objects destruction, mostly), and that the life duration of objects are predictable (RAII is your friend, again).
In this model, raw pointers are freely circulating and mostly not dangerous (but if the developer is smart enough, he/she will use references instead whenever possible).
raw pointers
std::auto_ptr
boost::scoped_ptr
Smart Pointed C++ Model
In a code full of smart pointers, the user can hope to ignore the lifetime of objects. The owner is never the user code: It is the smart pointer itself (RAII, again). The problem is that circular references mixed with reference counted smart pointers can be deadly, so you have to deal both with both shared pointers and weak pointers. So you have still ownership to consider (the weak pointer could well point to nothing, even if its advantage over raw pointer is that it can tell you so).
boost::shared_ptr
boost::weak_ptr
Conclusion
No matter the models I describe, unless exception, receiving a pointer is not receiving its ownership and it is still very important to know who owns who. Even for C++ code heavily using references and/or smart pointers.
For me, these 3 kinds cover most of my needs:
shared_ptr - reference-counted, deallocation when the counter reaches zero
weak_ptr - same as above, but it's a 'slave' for a shared_ptr, can't deallocate
auto_ptr - when the creation and deallocation happen inside the same function, or when the object has to be considered one-owner-only ever. When you assign one pointer to another, the second 'steals' the object from the first.
I have my own implementation for these, but they are also available in Boost.
I still pass objects by reference (const whenever possible), in this case the called method must assume the object is alive only during the time of call.
There's another kind of pointer that I use that I call hub_ptr. It's when you have an object that must be accessible from objects nested in it (usually as a virtual base class). This could be solved by passing a weak_ptr to them, but it doesn't have a shared_ptr to itself. As it knows these objects wouldn't live longer than him, it passes a hub_ptr to them (it's just a template wrapper to a regular pointer).
Don't have shared ownership. If you do, make sure it's only with code you don't control.
That solves 100% of the problems, since it forces you to understand how everything interacts.
Shared Ownership
boost::shared_ptr
When a resource is shared between multiple objects.
The boost shared_ptr uses reference counting to make sure the resource is de-allocated when everybody is finsihed.
std::tr1::shared_ptr<Blah> is quite often your best bet.
From boost, there's also the pointer container library. These are a bit more efficient and easier to use than a standard container of smart pointers, if you'll only be using the objects in the context of their container.
On Windows, there are the COM pointers (IUnknown, IDispatch, and friends), and various smart pointers for handling them (e.g. the ATL's CComPtr and the smart pointers auto-generated by the "import" statement in Visual Studio based on the _com_ptr class).
One Owner
boost::scoped_ptr
When you need to allocate memory dynamically but want to be sure it gets deallocated on every exit point of the block.
I find this usefull as it can easily be reseated, and released without ever having to worry about a leak
I don't think I ever was in a position to have shared ownership in my design. In fact, from the top of my head the only valid case I can think of is Flyweight pattern.
yasper::ptr is a lightweight, boost::shared_ptr like alternative. It works well in my (for now) small project.
In the web page at http://yasper.sourceforge.net/ it's described as follows:
Why write another C++ smart pointer?
There already exist several high
quality smart pointer implementations
for C++, most prominently the Boost
pointer pantheon and Loki's SmartPtr.
For a good comparison of smart pointer
implementations and when their use is
appropriate please read Herb Sutter's
The New C++: Smart(er) Pointers. In
contrast with the expansive features
of other libraries, Yasper is a
narrowly focused reference counting
pointer. It corresponds closely with
Boost's shared_ptr and Loki's
RefCounted/AllowConversion policies.
Yasper allows C++ programmers to
forget about memory management without
introducing the Boost's large
dependencies or having to learn about
Loki's complicated policy templates.
Philosophy
* small (contained in single header)
* simple (nothing fancy in the code, easy to understand)
* maximum compatibility (drop in replacement for dumb pointers)
The last point can be dangerous, since
yasper permits risky (yet useful)
actions (such as assignment to raw
pointers and manual release)
disallowed by other implementations.
Be careful, only use those features if
you know what you're doing!
There is another frequently used form of single-transferable-owner, and it is preferable to auto_ptr because it avoids the problems caused by auto_ptr's insane corruption of assignment semantics.
I speak of none other than swap. Any type with a suitable swap function can be conceived of as a smart reference to some content, which it owns until such time as ownership is transferred to another instance of the same type, by swapping them. Each instance retains its identity but gets bound to new content. It's like a safely rebindable reference.
(It's a smart reference rather than a smart pointer because you don't have to explicitly dereference it to get at the content.)
This means that auto_ptr becomes less necessary - it's only needed to fill the gaps where types don't have a good swap function. But all std containers do.
One Owner: Aka delete on Copy
std::auto_ptr
When the creator of the object wants to explicitly hand ownership to somebody else.
This is also a way documenting in the code I am giving this to you and I am no longer tracking it so make sure you delete it when you are finished.