I'm wondering if anyone's run across anything that exists which would fill this need.
Object A contains an object B. It wants to provide access to that B to clients through a pointer (maybe there's the option it could be 0, or maybe the clients need to be copiable and yet hold references...whatever). Clients, lets call them object C, would normally, if we're perfect developers, be written carefully so as to not violate the lifetime semantics of any pointer to B they might have...but we're not perfect, in fact we're pretty dumb half the time.
So what we want is for object C to have a pointer to object B that is not "shared" ownership but that is smart enough to recognize a situation in which the pointer is no longer valid, such as when object A is destroyed or it destroys object B. Accessing this pointer when it's no longer valid would cause an assertion/exception/whatever.
In other words, I wish to share access to data in a safe, clear way but retain the original ownership semantics. Currently, because I've not been able to find any shared pointer in which one of the objects owns it, I've been using shared_ptr in place of having such a thing. But I want clear owneship and shared/weak pointer doesn't really provide that.
Would be nice further if this smart pointer could be attached to member variables and not just hold pointers to dynamically allocated memory regions.
If it doesn't exist I'm going to make it, so I first want to know if someone's already released something out there that does it.
And, BTW, I do realize that things like references and pointers do provide this sort of thing...I'm looking for something smarter.
boost::weak_ptr is what you are looking for. Maybe with some minor tweaks though, like prohibiting creation of shared_ptr from it. Also, this can hold anything, including pointer to memory that is not dynamically allocated.
The semantics you want is similar to Qt's QPointer. This is a pointer that can hold QObjects and nulls itself when the corresponding QObject is deleteed (ordinarily, eg. by operator delete).
However, similar approach has inherent problems - such that the client cannot be sure he isn't using a dangling pointer. eg.
QPointer<T> smart_ptr = original_obj;
T* tmp = smart_ptr; // this might be a function argument etc.
... // later
delete original_obj;
... // even later
tmp->do_something(); // CRASH
This can be avoided using some "hard" references that don't allow object deletion, which is exactly what shared_ptr/weak_ptr do.
BTW, AFAIK, shared_ptr can point to member variables, except it can't manage them. That is, you must provide a custom deleter that doesn't do anything.
Related
I've been thinking that while I understand the goals of std::observer_ptr I think it would be nice if there was at least an option for a similar pointer type that knows if what it points to has been deleted. For example, we could have something like the following
slightly_smart_ptr<Foo> p1(new Foo());
auto p2 = p1;
p1.erase(); // This deletes the foo referred to by p1.
if (p2.expired())
std::cout << "p2 is expired\n"; // this will fire
One way to achieve this with the current standard library is to make a shared_ptr to A in some scope that will exist for the lifetime of A, always refer to A by passing weak_ptrs around, and delete A when it is no longer needed by resetting the shared_ptr. The weak_ptrs here will have the basic semantics of observer_ptrs that know if A has been deleted. But there are problems with this approach: weak_ptrs must be locked, turning them into shared_ptrs to be used, which feels untidy, but more seriously a shared_ptr to A must exist somewhere, when all the user wants is a slightly smart pointer that does not own any content. The user agrees to manually destroy the content when it is time: no ownership is shared so it is a code smell for the user to create a shared_ptr in such a situation.
I however cannot think of a way in which the details of this implementation could be effectively hidden.
Also does such a pointer exist as a proposal or in a boost library or elsewhere?
The problem of such smart pointer is that it would be more error prone than std::unique_ptr, T* or std::weak_ptr.
When you want to know if a pointer has been deleted from elsewhere by it's unique owner, in reality you need shared ownership and std::weak_ptr.
You see, there is a reason why you need to "lock" a weak pointer before using it. It's because when you start using it, you gain ownership of the pointer. If you cannot lock your "observer pointer that knows if deleted or not", you cannot safely use it, since at any moment after verifying it's validity, it can be deleted.
Also, you have a deeper contradiction.
When you have a unique pointer, you know who is gonna delete it, and you know who is the owner.
If you have a program that checks for the validity of a pointer at runtime, then it's because your program doesn't know the state of the ownership of the resource.
If your program or parts of your program cannot know the state of the ownership of a resource and need to check if it had been deleted or not, then you need to ensure that it won't be deleted the next line while using it, since it can be deleted at any time, since you cannot know about its ownership status. Therefore you need to own the resource temporarily while using it. Therefore you need shared ownership to defer the ownership decision while executing the code.
If you have shared ownership, you don't need a observer pointer that knows if deleted or not.
Your pointer don't need to exist then.
So... you thought you need that pointer, it could be handy... what can you do?
You need to review your code. If there is a single ownership, why do you need to know the validity of the pointer. Why cannot you simply ask the owner?
If the owner don't exist, maybe your code that want to do the check should not be valid when the owner is deleted. Maybe your structure that want to do the check should die at the same time as the owner.
If your unique owner dies at an unpredictable moment (for example, your unique owner is held by a shared owner) then maybe your structure should check the validity of the shared owner instead.
Maybe your code calling the function that want to check if its pointer is still valid should simply not call it when there owner is dead.
...
And so on.
There is so many ways to solve that, but needing a weak pointer on a unique owner usually shows a flaw in the program or a problem in the reasoning of the lifetime of the objects in your program.
Not feasible in general.
The entire purpose of the extant smart pointers is to keep track of object lifetime and ownership in a way that simply isn't possible in general with raw pointers, unless you hooked into the allocator and had some convoluted relationship between this allocator and any handles pertaining to the allocated object.
The benefits you are describing are the benefits that come neatly from using said extant smart pointers. shared_ptr and weak_ptr are perfect here.
There's no problem with locking (you want this) and there's no problem with there having to be a shared_ptr somewhere, because surely someone somewhere does own that data. If they don't, your design has much bigger problems and you're trying to hack around those problems with a similarly broken smart pointer concept that'll never exist in the standard.
class B;
class A
{
public:
A ()
: m_b(new B())
{
}
shared_ptr<B> GimmeB ()
{
return m_b;
}
private:
shared_ptr<B> m_b;
};
Let's say B is a class that semantically should not exist outside of the lifetime of A, i.e., it makes absolutely no sense for B to exist by itself. Should GimmeB return a shared_ptr<B> or a B*?
In general, is it good practice to completely avoid using raw pointers in C++ code, in lieu of smart pointers?
I am of the opinion that shared_ptr should only be used when there is explicit transfer or sharing of ownership, which I think is quite rare outside of cases where a function allocates some memory, populates it with some data, and returns it, and there is understanding between the caller and the callee that the former is now "responsible" for that data.
Your analysis is quite correct, I think. In this situation, I also would return a bare B*, or even a [const] B& if the object is guaranteed to never be null.
Having had some time to peruse smart pointers, I arrived at some guidelines which tell me what to do in many cases:
If you return an object whose lifetime is to be managed by the caller, return std::unique_ptr. The caller can assign it to a std::shared_ptr if it wants.
Returning std::shared_ptr is actually quite rare, and when it makes sense, it is generally obvious: you indicate to the caller that it will prolong the lifetime of the pointed-to object beyond the lifetime of the object which was originally maintaining the resource. Returning shared pointers from factories is no exception: you must do this eg. when you use std::enable_shared_from_this.
You very rarely need std::weak_ptr, except when you want to make sense of the lock method. This has some uses, but they are rare. In your example, if the lifetime of the A object was not deterministic from the caller's point of view, this would have been something to consider.
If you return a reference to an existing object whose lifetime the caller cannot control, then return a bare pointer or a reference. By doing so, you tell the caller that an object exists and that she doesn't have to take care of its lifetime. You should return a reference if you don't make use of the nullptr value.
The question "when should I use shared_ptr and when should I use raw pointers?" has a very simple answer:
Use raw pointers when you do not want to have any ownership attached to the pointer. This job can also often be done with references. Raw pointers can also be used in some low level code (such as for implementing smart pointers, or implementing containers).
Use unique_ptr or scope_ptr when you want unique ownership of the object. This is the most useful option, and should be used in most cases. Unique ownership can also be expressed by simply creating an object directly, rather than using a pointer (this is even better than using a unique_ptr, if it can be done).
Use shared_ptr or intrusive_ptr when you want shared ownership of the pointer. This can be confusing and inefficient, and is often not a good option. Shared ownership can be useful in some complex designs, but should be avoided in general, because it leads to code which is hard to understand.
shared_ptrs perform a totally different task from raw pointers, and neither shared_ptrs nor raw pointers are the best option for the majority of code.
The following is a good rule of thumb:
When there is no transfer of shared ownership references or plain pointers are good enough. (Plain pointers are more flexible than references.)
When there is transfer of ownership but no shared ownership then std::unique_ptr<> is a good choice. Often the case with factory functions.
When there is shared ownership, then it is a good use case for std::shared_ptr<> or boost::intrusive_ptr<>.
It is best to avoid shared ownership, partly because they are most expensive in terms of copying and std::shared_ptr<> takes double of the storage of a plain pointer, but, most importantly, because they are conducive for poor designs where there are no clear owners, which, in turn, leads to a hairball of objects that cannot destroy because they hold shared pointers to each other.
The best design is where clear ownership is established and is hierarchical, so that, ideally, no smart pointers are required at all. For example, if there is a factory that creates unique objects or returns existing ones, it makes sense for the factory to own the objects it creates and just keep them by value in an associative container (such as std::unordered_map), so that it can return plain pointers or references to its users. This factory must have lifetime that starts before its first user and ends after its last user (the hierarchical property), so that users cannot possible have a pointer to an already destroyed object.
If you don't want the callee of GimmeB() to be able to extend the lifetime of the pointer by keeping a copy of the ptr after the instance of A dies, then you definitely should not return a shared_ptr.
If the callee is not supposed to keep the returned pointer for long periods of time, i.e. there's no risk of the instance of A's lifetime expiring before the pointer's, then raw pointer would be better. But even a better choice is simply to use a reference, unless there's a good reason to use an actual raw pointer.
And finally in the case that the returned pointer can exist after the lifetime of the A instance has expired, but you don't want the pointer itself extend the lifetime of the B, then you can return a weak_ptr, which you can use to test whether it still exists.
The bottom line is that there's usually a nicer solution than using a raw pointer.
I agree with your opinion that shared_ptr is best used when explicit sharing of resources occurs, however there are other types of smart pointers available.
In your precise case: why not return a reference ?
A pointer suggests that the data might be null, however here there will always be a B in your A, thus it will never be null. The reference asserts this behavior.
That being said, I have seen people advocating the use of shared_ptr even in non-shared environments, and giving weak_ptr handles, with the idea of "securing" the application and avoiding stale pointers. Unfortunately, since you can recover a shared_ptr from the weak_ptr (and it is the only way to actually manipulate the data), this is still shared ownership even if it was not meant to be.
Note: there is a subtle bug with shared_ptr, a copy of A will share the same B as the original by default, unless you explicitly write a copy constructor and a copy assignment operator. And of course you would not use a raw pointer in A to hold a B, would you :) ?
Of course, another question is whether you actually need to do so. One of the tenets of good design is encapsulation. To achieve encapsulation:
You shall not return handles to your internals (see Law of Demeter).
so perhaps the real answer to your question is that instead of giving away a reference or pointer to B, it should only be modified through A's interface.
Generally, I would avoid using raw pointers as far as possible since they have very ambiguous meaning - you might have to deallocate the pointee, but maybe not, and only human-read and -written documentation tells you what the case is. And documentation is always bad, outdated or misunderstood.
If ownership is an issue, use a smart pointer. If not, I'd use a reference if practicable.
You allocate B at constuction of A.
You say B shouldn't persist outside As lifetime.
Both these point to B being a member of A and a just returning a reference accessor. Are you overengineering this?
I found that the C++ Core Guidelines give some very useful hints for this question:
To use raw pointer(T*) or smarter pointer depends on who owns the object (whose responsibility to release memory of the obj).
own :
smart pointer, owner<T*>
not own:
T*, T&, span<>
owner<>, span<> is defined in Microsoft GSL library
here is the rules of thumb:
1) never use raw pointer(or not own types) to pass ownership
2) smart pointer should only be used when ownership semantics are intended
3) T* or owner designate a individual object(only)
4) use vector/array/span for array
5) To my undetstanding, shared_ptr is usually used when you don't know who will release the obj, for example, one obj is used by multi-thread
It is good practice to avoid using raw pointers, but you can not just replace everything with shared_ptr. In the example, users of your class will assume that it's ok to extend B's lifetime beyond that of A's, and may decide to hold the returned B object for some time for their own reasons. You should return a weak_ptr, or, if B absolutely cannot exist when A is destroyed, a reference to B or simply a raw pointer.
When you say: "Let's say B is a class that semantically should not exist outside of the lifetime of A"
This tells me B should logically not exist without A, but what about physically existing?
If you can be sure no one will try using a *B after A dtors than perhaps a raw pointer will be fine. Otherwise a smarter pointer may be appropriate.
When clients have a direct pointer to A you have to trust they'll handle it appropriately; not try dtoring it etc.
I have a set of objects in a vector of pointers to their baseclass held inside a manager:
std::vector<object*> objectVec;
Classes may wish to spawn one of these objects using the Add() method in the manager. The problem is that they then subsequently need to set or update these objects themselves. I've decided to have Add() return a pointer to the object itself, which is stored in whatever class has decided to spawn one. The problem is dealing with the case where the object behind that pointer may have been deleted.
Add looks like this:
object* ObjectManager::Add(object* obj)
{
objectVec.push_back(obj);
return objectVec.back();
}
and used like this:
objectptr = ObjectManager::OMan()->Add(new object());
Where objectptr is a member of whatever class has called the function. So should that particular object be deleted, the pointer returned by Add would point to rubbish.
Is it my responsibility to ensure that whateverclass::objectptr is always set to NULL if this object is deleted? Or can this be dealt with using some sort of smart pointer? The problem being that I don't need to use a smart pointer to deal with the possibility of a memory leak, but to deal with the case where the stored pointer has become invalid.
Please let me know if i've been unclear, or if the question is badly formed.
Any help would be greatly appreciated.
Yes, you can store smart ptr's instead of raw ptr's in your vector. In this case if somebody releases an object, it's not deleted until the last reference is not released (the one held in vector in your case). You can use boost::shared_ptr or std::shared_ptr (C++11).
If this is not what you want, you can use boost::weak_ptr to store references in your vector. weak_ptr doesn't increment reference counter so if somebody releases an object, it's get deleted, but reference (weak_ptr) stored in your vector allows you to check this.
You likely want weak_ptr and shared_ptr. shared_ptr is a general smart pointer class. weak_ptr is an observer of shared_ptr. When all the references of the shared_ptr go away, instances of weak_ptr "become null" and are easier to deal with than a pointer to a deleted object.
These classes come with Boost.
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_47_0/libs/smart_ptr/shared_ptr.htm
http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_47_0/libs/smart_ptr/weak_ptr.htm
And if I'm not mistaken, there are equivalents built into std namespace on compilers that implement newer C++0x standards. Visual C++ keeps has this built in.
http://blogs.msdn.com/b/vcblog/archive/2011/02/16/10128357.aspx
Oh shoot, looks like everyone else beat me to the answer...
Best is to forget this "manager" idea, but if you do or if you don't, the solution to shared ownership is the same as always, use boost::shared_ptr.
Or, with relatively new compiler, use std::shared_ptr.
Considering that with shared_ptr the ownership issue is taken care of already, then ask yourself, what is it that the "manager" manages?
Cheers & hth.,
Is it my responsibility to ensure that whateverclass::objectptr is always set to NULL if this object is deleted?
You're writing the class, so it's up to you to decide. This is a design decision and either choice is admissible, provided that you document it:
design the application
write the documentation/specification
write the code to matches the specification
Or can this be dealt with using some sort of smart pointer?
Using a smart pointer (strong or weak version) will help achieve whatever behavior you chose for the class. However, it will also strongly affect the client code. In the following code:
class Scene
{
// can't use this object in a call to `ObjectManager::Add()`,
// assuming it uses a smart pointer to deal with object lifetimes.
Object myLight;
};
The use cases for the ObjectManager class should be taken into consideration, on top of simplicity of implementation. Think "write once, use a lot".
Dangling pointers and memory leaks are two different issues, but a proper shared pointer can protect from both. For this particular case, I'd suggest boost::shared_ptr.
Use std::vector<boost::shared_ptr<BaseType>> for the vector type and also have the objects that hold the bare pointers now hold instead a boost::shared_ptr<BaseType>. This will ensure that the pointers will stay valid in the vector and in the objects as long as one of those objects still exist.
If you have differing requirements, you can use a boost::weak_ptr in one of the places holding the pointer (either the vector or the object).
Also, the object can hold a derived type instead of a base type (boost::shared_ptr<DerivedType>) and you can convert between them using boost::shared_static_cast.
Here is the documentation for all of these concepts.
I have a class that contains a vector of object pointers. I have a GetObject(..) function in that class that looks through the vector, finds the object desired, and returns a pointer to it. However, if the user of the class does a delete() on that returned pointer, my program will crash because the vector still has a pointer to that, now invalid, object. So, in my GetObject() class, I can return a const pointer, but that doesn't solve the problem because you can still delete the object. The object is mutable so I can't return a pointer to a const object. I suppose I could prevent deletion by returning a reference to the object but I have my function returning NULL if there is an error. I guess I can pass back the object reference via the parameters and then return and error number like this
//-1 on object on found. 0 for success. Object is passed back in
// the function parameter result.
int MyObject::GetObject(int object_id, Item& result)
Is this the best solution for such a situation?
The best way to solve this problem is to use a shared-ownership smart pointer like shared_ptr, which you can find in Boost, C++ TR1, and C++0x.
A smart pointer is a container that manages the lifetime of your dynamically allocated object for you. It takes responsibility for deleteing the object when you are done using it.
With a shared ownership smart pointer, you can have multiple smart pointers that all share ownership of the dynamically allocated object. A reference count is kept that keeps track of how many smart pointers have ownership of the object, and when the last owning smart pointer is destroyed, the dynamically allocated object is deleted.
It is extremely difficult to manage resources manually in C++, and it's very easy to write code that looks correct and works right most of the time but that is still not correct. By using smart pointers and other resource-owning containers (like the standard library containers), you no longer have to manage resource manually. It is significantly easier to write correct code when all of your resource management is automatic.
Automatic resource management in C++ is accomplished using a design pattern called Resource Acquisition is Initialization (RAII), which is arguably the most important design pattern you as a C++ programmer should become familiar with.
Anybody in your code could also try to de-reference NULL. You going to stop them doing that too? If your container owns the object, and you make this clear (returning a raw pointer is usually pretty clear or mention in docs), then anyone who deletes it, the result is their own fault. The only way that you could guarantee the prevention of the deletion of the object is to prevent the user from ever gaining a native reference or pointer - in which case they just can't access the object.
Who are clients of your class? If they are not your mortal enemies you could just ask them nicely not to delete the object. Otherwise, there will always be a way for "them" to mess you up.
Okay, one possible solution is to make destructor private. That will prevent everyone from deleting the object. But then the object has to delete itself (delete this) somehow, maybe through some function called DeletObjectButDontBlameMeIfAppCrashes. If the owner is some other class then you can set the destructor to protected and owner class as friend of this class.
You should return a reference to the object. There are two ways to handle the case when there is no object found.
First, you can use the Null Object Pattern in order to implement a special value for that case. That might not make sense for your case though.
The other way is to split it up into two methods, one which can be used to check if an appropriate element exists, and one to retrieve it.
Many STL-containers or algorithms implement both of these, either by returned a past-the-end iterator, or by having empty() returns false as a prerequisite of calling a method like front or back.
If you can use the boost libraries, smart pointers can be used to ensure that pointers stay valid. Essentially, each reference to a smart pointer increases its "use count" by 1. When the reset function is called on a reference, the reference goes away and the use counter decrements. As long as some object is still holding on to a smart pointer, the reference will be valid. Note that the other classes will be able to change what its pointing to, but can't delete it.
(My description deals mainly with smart pointers specifically - the different types of pointers vary a little, but the general idea remains the same).
In a C++ project that uses smart pointers, such as boost::shared_ptr, what is a good design philosophy regarding use of "this"?
Consider that:
It's dangerous to store the raw pointer contained in any smart pointer for later use. You've given up control of object deletion and trust the smart pointer to do it at the right time.
Non-static class members intrinsically use a this pointer. It's a raw pointer and that can't be changed.
If I ever store this in another variable or pass it to another function which could potentially store it for later or bind it in a callback, I'm creating bugs that are introduced when anyone decides to make a shared pointer to my class.
Given that, when is it ever appropriate for me to explicitly use a this pointer? Are there design paradigms that can prevent bugs related to this?
Wrong question
In a C++ project that uses smart pointers
The issue has nothing to do with smart pointers actually. It is only about ownership.
Smart pointers are just tools
They change nothing WRT the concept of ownership, esp. the need to have well-defined ownership in your program, the fact that ownership can be voluntarily transferred, but cannot be taken by a client.
You must understand that smart pointers (also locks and other RAII objects) represent a value and a relationship WRT this value at the same time. A shared_ptr is a reference to an object and establishes a relationship: the object must not be destroyed before this shared_ptr, and when this shared_ptr is destroyed, if it is the last one aliasing this object, the object must be destroyed immediately. (unique_ptr can be viewed as a special case of shared_ptr where there is zero aliasing by definition, so the unique_ptr is always the last one aliasing an object.)
Why you should use smart pointers
It is recommended to use smart pointers because they express a lot with only variables and functions declarations.
Smart pointers can only express a well-defined design, they don't take away the need to define ownership. In contrast, garbage collection takes away the need to define who is responsible for memory deallocation. (But do not take away the need to define who is responsible for other resources clean-up.)
Even in non-purely functional garbage collected languages, you need to make ownership clear: you don't want to overwrite the value of an object if other components still need the old value. This is notably true in Java, where the concept of ownership of mutable data structure is extremely important in threaded programs.
What about raw pointers?
The use of a raw pointer does not mean there is no ownership. It's just not described by a variable declaration. It can be described in comments, in your design documents, etc.
That's why many C++ programmers consider that using raw pointers instead of the adequate smart pointer is inferior: because it's less expressive (I have avoided the terms "good" and "bad" on purpose). I believe the Linux kernel would be more readable with a few C++ objects to express relationships.
You can implement a specific design with or without smart pointers. The implementation that uses smart pointer appropriately will be considered superior by many C++ programmers.
Your real question
In a C++ project, what is a good design philosophy regarding use of "this"?
That's awfully vague.
It's dangerous to store the raw pointer for later use.
Why do you need to a pointer for later use?
You've given up control of object deletion and trust the responsible component to do it at the right time.
Indeed, some component is responsible for the lifetime of the variable. You cannot take the responsibility: it has to be transferred.
If I ever store this in another variable or pass it to another function which could potentially store it for later or bind it in a callback, I'm creating bugs that are introduced when anyone decides to use my class.
Obviously, since the caller is not informed that the function will hide a pointer and use it later without the control of the caller, you are creating bugs.
The solution is obviously to either:
transfer responsibility to handle the lifetime of the object to the function
ensure that the pointer is only saved and used under the control of the caller
Only in the first case, you might end up with a smart pointer in the class implementation.
The source of your problem
I think that your problem is that you are trying hard to complicate matters using smart pointers. Smart pointers are tools to make things easier, not harder. If smart pointers complicate your specification, then rethink your spec in term of simpler things.
Don't try to introduce smart pointers as a solution before you have a problem.
Only introduce smart pointers to solve a specific well-defined problem. Because you don't describe a specific well-defined problem, it is not possible to discuss a specific solution (involving smart pointers or not).
While i don't have a general answer or some idiom, there is boost::enable_shared_from_this . It allows you to get a shared_ptr managing an object that is already managed by shared_ptr. Since in a member function you have no reference to those managing shared_ptr's, enable_shared_ptr does allow you to get a shared_ptr instance and pass that when you need to pass the this pointer.
But this won't solve the issue of passing this from within the constructor, since at that time, no shared_ptr is managing your object yet.
One example of correct use is return *this; in functions like operator++() and operator<<().
When you are using a smart pointer class, you are right that is dangerous to directly expose "this". There are some pointer classes related to boost::shared_ptr<T> that may be of use:
boost::enable_shared_from_this<T>
Provides the ability to have an object return a shared pointer to itself that uses the same reference counting data as an existing shared pointer to the object
boost::weak_ptr<T>
Works hand-in-hand with shared pointers, but do not hold a reference to the object. If all the shared pointers go away and the object is released, a weak pointer will be able to tell that the object no longer exists and will return you NULL instead of a pointer to invalid memory. You can use weak pointers to get shared pointers to a valid reference-counted object.
Neither of these is foolproof, of course, but they'll at least make your code more stable and secure while providing appropriate access and reference counting for your objects.
If you need to use this, just use it explicitly. Smart pointers wrap only pointers of the objects they own - either exclusivelly (unique_ptr) or in a shared manner (shared_ptr).
I personally like to use the this pointer when accessing member variables of the class. For example:
void foo::bar ()
{
this->some_var += 7;
}
It's just a harmless question of style. Some people like it, somepeople don't.
But using the this pointer for any other thing is likely to cause problems. If you really need to do fancy things with it, you should really reconsider your design. I once saw some code that, in the constructor of a class, it assigned the this pointer to another pointer stored somewhere else! That's just crazy, and I can't ever think of a reason to do that. The whole code was a huge mess, by the way.
Can you tell us what exactly do you want to do with the pointer?
Another option is using intrusive smart pointers, and taking care of reference counting within the object itself, not the pointers. This requires a bit more work, but is actually more efficient and easy to control.
Another reason to pass around this is if you want to keep a central registry of all of the objects. In the constructor, an object calls a static method of the registry with this. Its useful for various publish/subscribe mechanisms, or when you don't want the registry to need knowledge of what objects/classes are in the system.