What's a smart pointer?

[Gernot Frisch]

and what for would I need it?

--
-Gernot
int main(int argc, char** argv) {printf
("%silto%c%cf%cgl%ssic%ccom%c", "ma", 58, 'g', 64, "ba", 46, 10);}

________________________________________
Looking for a good game? Do it yourself!
GLBasic - you can do
www.GLBasic.com

 

[Sharad Kala]

and what for would I need it?

It is a simple wrapper around a regular pointer. Typically operator * and ->
are overloaded in such a class. One very simple example would be like -
template <class T>
class SPtr
{
T* ptr;
public:
SPtr(T* p = 0) : ptr(p) {}
~SPtr() {delete ptr;}
T& operator*() {return *ptr;}
T* operator->() {return ptr;}
// ...
};


They give feel like raw (or dumb) pointers but one can give semantics to
- Their construction and destruction
- Copying and assignment
- Dereferencing etc

The topic can be best described only by a good text.
Some good references to smart pointers are
- More effective C++ (Meyers)
- Modern C++ design (Alexandrescu)
- Boost smart pointers

Sharad

 

[PKH]

It is a simple wrapper around a regular pointer. Typically operator *
and ->
are overloaded in such a class. One very simple example would be like -
template <class T>
class SPtr
{
T* ptr;
public:
SPtr(T* p = 0) : ptr(p) {}
~SPtr() {delete ptr;}
T& operator*() {return *ptr;}
T* operator->() {return ptr;}
// ...
};


They give feel like raw (or dumb) pointers but one can give semantics to
- Their construction and destruction
- Copying and assignment
- Dereferencing etc

The topic can be best described only by a good text.
Some good references to smart pointers are
- More effective C++ (Meyers)
- Modern C++ design (Alexandrescu)
- Boost smart pointers

Sharad

They are very useful if you integrate them with the delete-operator, so that
when deleting memory, all smartpointers that point to that memory will be
invalidated by setting their object-pointers to NULL.
By using a hashtable for memory locations with smartpointers, the
performance hit is low.

PKH

 

[Method Man]

They are very useful if you integrate them with the delete-operator, so that
when deleting memory, all smartpointers that point to that memory will be
invalidated by setting their object-pointers to NULL.
By using a hashtable for memory locations with smartpointers, the
performance hit is low.

PKH

So are 'handles' equivalent to smart pointers created/managed by the OS?

 

[Ioannis Vranos]

So are 'handles' equivalent to smart pointers created/managed by the OS?

When you are saying handles, are you talking about .NET/CLI?

 

[Method Man]

When you are saying handles, are you talking about .NET/CLI?

I was being very vague, but I guess I was referring to handles in Win32
programming (handle to a window) or COM objects. My knowledge of handles is
very little, but they sound exactly like smart pointers to me.

 

[PKH]

I was being very vague, but I guess I was referring to handles in Win32
programming (handle to a window) or COM objects. My knowledge of handles
is
very little, but they sound exactly like smart pointers to me.

It's not quite the same. Handles in Win32 use reference counting to figure
out how many has pointers to the data and only releases when the reference
count reaches 0.
With smartpointers, an allocation can have many smartpointers pointing to it
when it is deleted. When integrated with delete, all these smartpointers
will be invalidated. I.E. using f.ex pcSmartPtr->GetObject() now returns
NULL for all of them. When using smartpointers you allways have to use a
function like GetObject and check the returnvalue when accessing data.

PKH

 

[Howard]

It's not quite the same. Handles in Win32 use reference counting to figure
out how many has pointers to the data and only releases when the reference
count reaches 0.

While you're correct that that is how handles are *used* in Windows, the
HANDLE data type itself, in C++ (and C) under Windows, is defined as void*.
It's how you obtain, release, and use them that makes the difference. (It
would be a mistake, for example, to use new and delete on one.) But the
object itself is just a pointer to void.

-Howard