Angus Leeming <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
| On Thursday 01 August 2002 12:53 pm, Lars Gullik Bjønnes wrote:
>
| It appears you aren't against the basic idea. Good.
>
>> | I'd like, therefore, to change the LyXView store
>> | public:
>> | /// return the current buffer view
>> | BufferView * view() const { return bufferview_,get(); }
>>
>> I'd rather change this one to
>>
>> a. return a shared_ptr
>> b. return a weak_ptr
>
| Then I think it should be
| boost::shared_ptr<BufferView> const & view() const { return bufferview_; }
>
| No more expensive than before, but may lead to more extensive changes to the
| rest of the code base than I'd anticipated.
>
>> | and to make it accessible through BufferView:
>> | boost::weak_ptr<BufferView> const BufferView::cachablePtr() const
>> | {
>> | return pimpl_->owner_->cachablePtr();
>> | }
>>
>> and you really need this?
>
| Yes. Only now it would be
>
| boost::shared_ptr<BufferView> const & BufferView::cachablePtr() const
| {
| return pimpl_->owner_->view();
| }
>
| Think of all those times when a BufferView * (or even a BufferView &) is
| passed to an inset. It makes no sense at all to pass a shared_ptr in these
| cases, but if the inset wants to cache this BufferView * then it can do so as
This is where we disagree... it think it makes perfect sense to
_always_ pass a shared_ptr.
And if the caller needs to cache the BufferView it should do that with
a weak_ptr.
(And when using it could be turned back into a shared_ptr if needed.)
--
Lgb
