Search Results

Search found 5153 results on 207 pages for 'unique ptr'.

Page 23/207 | < Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >

  • How do sites avoid SEO issues / legalities with subdomain unique ids?

    - by JM4
    I was looking through a few websites recently and noticed a trend I'm not sure I understand. Sites are creating unique referral URLs for customers in the form of: http://customname.site.com (If somebody were to use http://www.site.com/customname it would function the same way). I can see the sites are using 302 redirects at some point using Google Chrome then doing some sort of htaccess redirect, taking the subdomain name (customname) and applying it as a referral parameter then keeping in session during the entire process. However, there must be thousands of these custom URLs that people are typing in. How are each one of these "subdomains" not treated as separate URLs which in turn are redirected to the same page (in short, generating tons of links all pointing to the same page which Google would normally frown upon)? Additionally, the links also appear on the site themselves as clickable links so I'm not sure how these are not tracked. Similarly, the "unique" url is not indexed or cached in any Google search results. How is this capability handled? It does NOT highlight the referral aspect, but a true example of this is visiting http://sfgiants.com which does a 302 redirect to the much longer proper San Francisco Giants MLB homepage. I am wondering how SFgiants.com is not indexed (assuming that direct shortened link appears on several MLB pages)? 1 - I know these are 302 redirects, I can see this on the sites network flow. 2 - These links do in fact appear on the page itself because in some areas (for example, the bottom of the page may say: send this page to a friend! http://name.site.com/ which in turn would again redirect to something like http://www.site.com?id=name so the id value could be stored in session

    Read the article

  • §non_lazy_ptr iphone sdk 3.0

    - by Hans Espen
    After I built my iphone 2.2.1 application in sdk 3.0, I get a lot of errors of type §non_lazy_ptr. I am getting it on the CFFTPStream constants, like kCFStreamPropertyFTPPassword and kCFStreamPropertyUserName. Anyone know what causes this?

    Read the article

  • Using mem_fun_ref with boost::shared_ptr

    - by BlueRaja
    Following the advice of this page, I'm trying to get shared_ptr to call IUnknown::Release() instead of delete: IDirectDrawSurface* dds; ... //Allocate dds return shared_ptr<IDirectDrawSurface>(dds, mem_fun_ref(&IUnknown::Release)); error C2784: 'std::const_mem_fun1_ref_t<_Result,_Ty,_Arg std::mem_fun_ref(Result (_thiscall _Ty::* )(_Arg) const)' : could not deduce template argument for 'Result (_thiscall _Ty::* )(Arg) const' from 'ULONG (_cdecl IUnknown::* )(void)' error C2784: 'std::const_mem_fun_ref_t<_Result,_Ty std::mem_fun_ref(Result (_thiscall _Ty::* )(void) const)' : could not deduce template argument for 'Result (_thiscall _Ty::* )(void) const' from 'ULONG (__cdecl IUnknown::* )(void)' error C2784: 'std::mem_fun1_ref_t<_Result,_Ty,_Arg std::mem_fun_ref(Result (_thiscall _Ty::* )(_Arg))' : could not deduce template argument for 'Result (_thiscall _Ty::* )(Arg)' from 'ULONG (_cdecl IUnknown::* )(void)' error C2784: 'std::mem_fun_ref_t<_Result,_Ty std::mem_fun_ref(Result (_thiscall _Ty::* )(void))' : could not deduce template argument for 'Result (_thiscall _Ty::* )(void)' from 'ULONG (__cdecl IUnknown::* )(void)' error C2661: 'boost::shared_ptr::shared_ptr' : no overloaded function takes 2 arguments I have no idea what to make of this. My limited template/functor knowledge led me to try typedef ULONG (IUnknown::*releaseSignature)(void); shared_ptr<IDirectDrawSurface>(dds, mem_fun_ref(static_cast<releaseSignature>(&IUnknown::Release))); But to no avail. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Intellisense fails for boost::shared_ptr with Boost 1.40.0 in Visual Studio 2008

    - by Edward Loper
    I'm having trouble getting intellisense to auto-complete shared pointers for boost 1.40.0. (It works fine for Boost 1.33.1.) Here's a simple sample project file where auto-complete does not work: #include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp> struct foo { bool func() { return true; }; }; void bar() { boost::shared_ptr<foo> pfoo; pfoo.get(); // <-- intellisense does not autocomplete after "pfoo." pfoo->func(); // <-- intellisense does not autocomplete after "pfoo->" } When I right-click on shared_ptr, and do "Go to Definition," it brings be to a forward-declaration of the shared_ptr class in . It does not bring me to the actual definition, which is in However, it compiles fine, and auto-completion works fine for "boost::." Also, auto-completion works fine for boost::scoped_ptr and for boost::shared_array. Any ideas?

    Read the article

  • Can I use boost::make_shared with a private constructor?

    - by Billy ONeal
    Consider the following: class DirectoryIterator; namespace detail { class FileDataProxy; class DirectoryIteratorImpl { friend class DirectoryIterator; friend class FileDataProxy; WIN32_FIND_DATAW currentData; HANDLE hFind; std::wstring root; DirectoryIteratorImpl(); explicit DirectoryIteratorImpl(const std::wstring& pathSpec); void increment(); public: ~DirectoryIteratorImpl() {}; }; class FileDataProxy //Serves as a proxy to the WIN32_FIND_DATA struture inside the iterator. { friend class DirectoryIterator; boost::shared_ptr<DirectoryIteratorImpl> iteratorSource; FileDataProxy(boost::shared_ptr<DirectoryIteratorImpl> parent) : iteratorSource(parent) {}; public: std::wstring GetFolderPath() const { return iteratorSource->root; } }; } class DirectoryIterator : public boost::iterator_facade<DirectoryIterator, detail::FileDataProxy, std::input_iterator_tag> { friend class boost::iterator_core_access; boost::shared_ptr<detail::DirectoryIteratorImpl> impl; void increment() { impl->increment(); }; detail::FileDataProxy dereference() const { return detail::FileDataProxy(impl); }; public: DirectoryIterator() { impl = boost::make_shared<detail::DirectoryIteratorImpl>(); }; }; It seems like DirectoryIterator should be able to call boost::make_shared<DirectoryIteratorImpl>, because it is a friend of DirectoryIteratorImpl. However, this code fails to compile because the constructor for DirectoryIteratorImpl is private. Since this class is an internal implementation detail that clients of DirectoryIterator should never touch, it would be nice if I could keep the constructor private. Is this my fundamental misunderstanding around make_shared or do I need to mark some sort of boost piece as friend in order for the call to compile?

    Read the article

  • The cost of passing by shared_ptr

    - by Artem
    I use std::tr1::shared_ptr extensively throughout my application. This includes passing objects in as function arguments. Consider the following: class Dataset {...} void f( shared_ptr< Dataset const > pds ) {...} void g( shared_ptr< Dataset const > pds ) {...} ... While passing a dataset object around via shared_ptr guarantees its existence inside f and g, the functions may be called millions of times, which causes a lot of shared_ptr objects being created and destroyed. Here's a snippet of the flat gprof profile from a recent run: Each sample counts as 0.01 seconds. % cumulative self self total time seconds seconds calls s/call s/call name 9.74 295.39 35.12 2451177304 0.00 0.00 std::tr1::__shared_count::__shared_count(std::tr1::__shared_count const&) 8.03 324.34 28.95 2451252116 0.00 0.00 std::tr1::__shared_count::~__shared_count() So, ~17% of the runtime was spent on reference counting with shared_ptr objects. Is this normal? A large portion of my application is single-threaded and I was thinking about re-writing some of the functions as void f( const Dataset& ds ) {...} and replacing the calls shared_ptr< Dataset > pds( new Dataset(...) ); f( pds ); with f( *pds ); in places where I know for sure the object will not get destroyed while the flow of the program is inside f(). But before I run off to change a bunch of function signatures / calls, I wanted to know what the typical performance hit of passing by shared_ptr was. Seems like shared_ptr should not be used for functions that get called very often. Any input would be appreciated. Thanks for reading. -Artem

    Read the article

  • Why isn't the reference counter in boost::shared_ptr volatile?

    - by Johann Gerell
    In the boost::shared_ptr destructor, this is done: if(--*pn == 0) { boost::checked_delete(px); delete pn; } where pn is a pointer to the reference counter, which is typedefed as shared_ptr::count_type -> detail::atomic_count -> long I would have expected the long to be volatile long, given threaded usage and the non-atomic 0-check-and-deletion in the shared_ptr destructor above. Why isn't it volatile?

    Read the article

  • Memory leak using shared_ptr

    - by nabulke
    Both code examples compile and run without problems. Using the second variant results in a memory leak. Any ideas why? Thanks in advance for any help. Variant 1: typedef boost::shared_ptr<ParameterTabelle> SpParameterTabelle; struct ParTabSpalteData { ParTabSpalteData(const SpParameterTabelle& tabelle, const string& id) :Tabelle(tabelle), Id(id) { } const SpParameterTabelle& Tabelle; string Id; }; Variant 2: struct ParTabSpalteData { ParTabSpalteData(const SpParameterTabelle& tabelle, const string& id) :Id(id) { // causes memory leak Tabelle2 = tabelle; } SpParameterTabelle Tabelle2; string Id; };

    Read the article

  • Compilation problems with vector<auto_ptr<> >

    - by petersohn
    Consider the following code: #include <iostream> #include <memory> #include <vector> using namespace std; struct A { int a; A(int a_):a(a_) {} }; int main() { vector<auto_ptr<A> > as; for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { auto_ptr<A> a(new A(i)); as.push_back(a); } for (vector<auto_ptr<A> >::iterator it = as.begin(); it != as.end(); ++it) cout << (*it)->a << endl; } When trying to compile it, I get the following obscure compiler error from g++: g++ -O0 -g3 -Wall -c -fmessage-length=0 -MMD -MP -MF"src/proba.d" -MT"src/proba.d" -o"src/proba.o" "../src/proba.cpp" /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/ext/new_allocator.h: In member function ‘void __gnu_cxx::new_allocator<_Tp>::construct(_Tp*, const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>]’: /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_vector.h:606: instantiated from ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::push_back(const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> >]’ ../src/proba.cpp:19: instantiated from here /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/ext/new_allocator.h:104: error: passing ‘const std::auto_ptr<A>’ as ‘this’ argument of ‘std::auto_ptr<_Tp>::operator std::auto_ptr_ref<_Tp1>() [with _Tp1 = A, _Tp = A]’ discards qualifiers /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/vector.tcc: In member function ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::_M_insert_aux(__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<typename std::_Vector_base<_Tp, _Alloc>::_Tp_alloc_type::pointer, std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc> >, const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> >]’: /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_vector.h:610: instantiated from ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::push_back(const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> >]’ ../src/proba.cpp:19: instantiated from here /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/vector.tcc:256: error: passing ‘const std::auto_ptr<A>’ as ‘this’ argument of ‘std::auto_ptr<_Tp>::operator std::auto_ptr_ref<_Tp1>() [with _Tp1 = A, _Tp = A]’ discards qualifiers /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_construct.h: In function ‘void std::_Construct(_T1*, const _T2&) [with _T1 = std::auto_ptr<A>, _T2 = std::auto_ptr<A>]’: /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_uninitialized.h:86: instantiated from ‘_ForwardIterator std::__uninitialized_copy_aux(_InputIterator, _InputIterator, _ForwardIterator, __false_type) [with _InputIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >, _ForwardIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >]’ /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_uninitialized.h:113: instantiated from ‘_ForwardIterator std::uninitialized_copy(_InputIterator, _InputIterator, _ForwardIterator) [with _InputIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >, _ForwardIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >]’ /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_uninitialized.h:254: instantiated from ‘_ForwardIterator std::__uninitialized_copy_a(_InputIterator, _InputIterator, _ForwardIterator, std::allocator<_Tp>) [with _InputIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >, _ForwardIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >, _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>]’ /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/vector.tcc:279: instantiated from ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::_M_insert_aux(__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<typename std::_Vector_base<_Tp, _Alloc>::_Tp_alloc_type::pointer, std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc> >, const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> >]’ /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_vector.h:610: instantiated from ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::push_back(const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> >]’ ../src/proba.cpp:19: instantiated from here /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_construct.h:81: error: passing ‘const std::auto_ptr<A>’ as ‘this’ argument of ‘std::auto_ptr<_Tp>::operator std::auto_ptr_ref<_Tp1>() [with _Tp1 = A, _Tp = A]’ discards qualifiers make: *** [src/proba.o] Error 1 It seems to me that there is some kind of problem with consts here. Does this mean that auto_ptr can't be used in vectors?

    Read the article

  • pushing back an boost::ptr_vector<...>::iterator in another boost::ptr_vector?

    - by Ethan Nash
    Hi all, I have the following code (just typed it in here, might have typos or stuff): typedef boost::ptr_vector<SomeClass> tvec; tvec v; // ... fill v ... tvec vsnap; for(tvec::iterator it = v.begin(); it != v.end(); ++it) { if((*v).anyCondition) vsnap.push_back( it ); // (*it) or &(*it) doesn't work } My problem is now that i cant push_back an iterator in any way, I just don't get the pointer out of the iterator. Is there an easy way i didnt see, or are boosts ptr_vector the false choice for this case? Thanks in advance.

    Read the article

  • Compilng problems with vector<auto_ptr<> >

    - by petersohn
    Consider the following code: #include <iostream> #include <memory> #include <vector> using namespace std; struct A { int a; A(int a_):a(a_) {} }; int main() { vector<auto_ptr<A> > as; for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { auto_ptr<A> a(new A(i)); as.push_back(a); } for (vector<auto_ptr<A> >::iterator it = as.begin(); it != as.end(); ++it) cout << (*it)->a << endl; } When trying to compile it, I get the following obscure compiler error from g++: g++ -O0 -g3 -Wall -c -fmessage-length=0 -MMD -MP -MF"src/proba.d" -MT"src/proba.d" -o"src/proba.o" "../src/proba.cpp" /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/ext/new_allocator.h: In member function ‘void __gnu_cxx::new_allocator<_Tp>::construct(_Tp*, const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>]’: /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_vector.h:606: instantiated from ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::push_back(const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> >]’ ../src/proba.cpp:19: instantiated from here /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/ext/new_allocator.h:104: error: passing ‘const std::auto_ptr<A>’ as ‘this’ argument of ‘std::auto_ptr<_Tp>::operator std::auto_ptr_ref<_Tp1>() [with _Tp1 = A, _Tp = A]’ discards qualifiers /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/vector.tcc: In member function ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::_M_insert_aux(__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<typename std::_Vector_base<_Tp, _Alloc>::_Tp_alloc_type::pointer, std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc> >, const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> >]’: /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_vector.h:610: instantiated from ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::push_back(const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> >]’ ../src/proba.cpp:19: instantiated from here /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/vector.tcc:256: error: passing ‘const std::auto_ptr<A>’ as ‘this’ argument of ‘std::auto_ptr<_Tp>::operator std::auto_ptr_ref<_Tp1>() [with _Tp1 = A, _Tp = A]’ discards qualifiers /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_construct.h: In function ‘void std::_Construct(_T1*, const _T2&) [with _T1 = std::auto_ptr<A>, _T2 = std::auto_ptr<A>]’: /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_uninitialized.h:86: instantiated from ‘_ForwardIterator std::__uninitialized_copy_aux(_InputIterator, _InputIterator, _ForwardIterator, __false_type) [with _InputIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >, _ForwardIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >]’ /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_uninitialized.h:113: instantiated from ‘_ForwardIterator std::uninitialized_copy(_InputIterator, _InputIterator, _ForwardIterator) [with _InputIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >, _ForwardIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >]’ /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_uninitialized.h:254: instantiated from ‘_ForwardIterator std::__uninitialized_copy_a(_InputIterator, _InputIterator, _ForwardIterator, std::allocator<_Tp>) [with _InputIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >, _ForwardIterator = __gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<std::auto_ptr<A>*, std::vector<std::auto_ptr<A>, std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> > > >, _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>]’ /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/vector.tcc:279: instantiated from ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::_M_insert_aux(__gnu_cxx::__normal_iterator<typename std::_Vector_base<_Tp, _Alloc>::_Tp_alloc_type::pointer, std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc> >, const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> >]’ /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_vector.h:610: instantiated from ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::push_back(const _Tp&) [with _Tp = std::auto_ptr<A>, _Alloc = std::allocator<std::auto_ptr<A> >]’ ../src/proba.cpp:19: instantiated from here /usr/include/c++/4.1.2/bits/stl_construct.h:81: error: passing ‘const std::auto_ptr<A>’ as ‘this’ argument of ‘std::auto_ptr<_Tp>::operator std::auto_ptr_ref<_Tp1>() [with _Tp1 = A, _Tp = A]’ discards qualifiers make: *** [src/proba.o] Error 1 It seems to me that there is some kind of problem with consts here. Does this mean that auto_ptr can't be used in vectors?

    Read the article

  • should std::auto_ptr<>::operator = reset / deallocate its existing pointee ?

    - by afriza
    I read here about std::auto_ptr<::operator= Notice however that the left-hand side object is not automatically deallocated when it already points to some object. You can explicitly do this by calling member function reset before assigning it a new value. However, when I read the source code for header file C:\Program Files\Microsoft Visual Studio 8\VC\ce\include\memory template<class _Other> auto_ptr<_Ty>& operator=(auto_ptr<_Other>& _Right) _THROW0() { // assign compatible _Right (assume pointer) reset(_Right.release()); return (*this); } auto_ptr<_Ty>& operator=(auto_ptr<_Ty>& _Right) _THROW0() { // assign compatible _Right (assume pointer) reset(_Right.release()); return (*this); } auto_ptr<_Ty>& operator=(auto_ptr_ref<_Ty> _Right) _THROW0() { // assign compatible _Right._Ref (assume pointer) _Ty **_Pptr = (_Ty **)_Right._Ref; _Ty *_Ptr = *_Pptr; *_Pptr = 0; // release old reset(_Ptr); // set new return (*this); } What is the correct/standard behavior? How do other STL implementations behave?

    Read the article

  • Why an auto_ptr can "seal" a container

    - by icephere
    auto_ptr on wikipedia said that "an auto_ptr containing an STL container may be used to prevent further modification of the container.". It used the following example: auto_ptr<vector<ContainedType> > open_vec(new vector<ContainedType>); open_vec->push_back(5); open_vec->push_back(3); // Transfers control, but now the vector cannot be changed: auto_ptr<const vector<ContainedType> > closed_vec(open_vec); // closed_vec->push_back(8); // Can no longer modify If I uncomment the last line, g++ will report an error as t05.cpp:24: error: passing ‘const std::vector<int, std::allocator<int> >’ as ‘this’ argument of ‘void std::vector<_Tp, _Alloc>::push_back(const _Tp&) [with _Tp = int, _Alloc = std::allocator<int>]’ discards qualifiers I am curious why after transferring the ownership of this vector, it can no longer be modified? Thanks a lot!

    Read the article

  • C++ -- Is there an implicit cast here from Fred* to auto_ptr<Fred>?

    - by q0987
    Hello all, I saw the following code, #include <new> #include <memory> using namespace std; class Fred; // Forward declaration typedef auto_ptr<Fred> FredPtr; class Fred { public: static FredPtr create(int i) { return new Fred(i); // Is there an implicit casting here? If not, how can we return // a Fred* with return value as FredPtr? } private: Fred(int i=10) : i_(i) { } Fred(const Fred& x) : i_(x.i_) { } int i_; }; Please see the question listed in function create. Thank you // Updated based on comments Yes, the code cannot pass the VC8.0 error C2664: 'std::auto_ptr<_Ty::auto_ptr(std::auto_ptr<_Ty &) throw()' : cannot convert parameter 1 from 'Fred *' to 'std::auto_ptr<_Ty &' The code was copied from the C++ FAQ 12.15. However, after making the following changes, replace return new Fred(i); with return auto_ptr<Fred>(new Fred(i)); This code can pass the VC8.0 compiler. But I am not sure whether or not this is a correct fix.

    Read the article

  • Naming a typedef for a boost::shared_ptr<const Foo>

    - by Blair Zajac
    Silly question, but say you have class Foo: class Foo { public: typedef boost::shared_ptr<Foo> RcPtr; void non_const_method() {} void const_method() const {} }; Having a const Foo::RcPtr doesn't prevent non-const methods from being invoked on the class, the following will compile: #include <boost/shared_ptr.hpp> int main() { const Foo::RcPtr const_foo_ptr(new Foo); const_foo_ptr->non_const_method(); const_foo_ptr->const_method(); return 0; } But naming a typedef ConstRcPtr implies, to me, that the typedef would be typedef const boost::shared_ptr<Foo> ConstRcPtr; which is not what I'm interested in. An odder name, but maybe more accurate, is RcPtrConst: typedef boost::shared_ptr<const Foo> RcPtrConst; However, Googling for RcPtrConst gets zero hits, so people don't use this as a typedef name :) Does anyone have any other suggestions?

    Read the article

  • Why aren't these shared_ptrs pointing to the same container?

    - by BeeBand
    I have a class Model: class Model { ... boost::shared_ptr<Deck> _deck; boost::shared_ptr<CardStack> _stack[22]; }; Deck inherits from CardStack. I tried to make _stack[0] point to the same thing that _deck points to by going: { _deck = boost::shared_ptr<Deck>(new Deck()); _stack[0] = _deck; } It seems that the assignment to _deck of _stack[0] results in a copy of _deck being made. How can I get them to point to the same thing?

    Read the article

  • Wrapping allocated output parameters with a scoped_ptr/array

    - by Danra
    So, I have some code which looks like this: byte* ar; foo(ar) // Allocates a new[] byte array for ar ... delete[] ar; To make this safer, I used a scoped_array: byte* arRaw; scoped_array ar; foo(arRaw); ar.reset(arRaw); ... // No delete[] The question is, Is there any existing way to do this using just the scoped_array, without using a temporary raw array? I can probably write an in-place "resetter" class, just wondering if the functionality exists and I'm missing it. Thanks, Dan

    Read the article

  • Accomplishing boost::shared_from_this() in constructor via boost::shared_from_raw(this)

    - by Kyle
    Googling and poking around the boost code, it appears that it's now possible to construct a shared_ptr to this in a constructor, by inheriting from enable_shared_from_raw and calling shared_from_raw(this) Is there any documentation or examples of this? I'm finding nothing with google. Why am I not finding any useful buzz on this on google? I would have thought using shared_from_this in a constructor would be a hot/desirable item. Should I be inheriting from both enable_shared_from_raw and enable_shared_from_this, and restricting my usage of enable_shared_from_raw when I have to? If so, why? Is there a performance hit with shared_from_raw?

    Read the article

  • Is there any boost-independent version of boost/tr1 shared_ptr

    - by Artyom
    I'm looking for independent implementation of boost/tr1 shared_ptr, weak_ptr and enable_shared_from_this. I need: Boost independent very small implementation of these features. I need support of only modern compilers like GCC-4.x, MSVC-2008, Intel not things like MSVC6 or gcc-3.3 I need it to be licensed under non-copyleft LGPL compatible license like Boost/Mit/3-clause BSD. So I can include it in my library. Note - it is quite hard to extract shared_ptr from boost, at least BCP gives about 324 files...

    Read the article

  • Where the hell is shared_ptr!?!

    - by Jake
    I am so frustrated right now after several hours trying to find where the hell is shared_ptr located at. None of the examples i see show complete code to include the headers for shared_ptr (and working). simply stating "std" "tr1" and "" is not helping at all! I have downloaded boosts and all but still it doesn't show up! Can someone help me by telling exactly where to find it? Thanks for letting me vent my frustrations!

    Read the article

  • shared_ptr requires complete type; cannot use it with lua_State*

    - by topright
    Hello! I'm writing a C++/OOP wrapper for Lua. My code is: class LuaState { boost::shared_ptr<lua_State> L; LuaState(): L( luaL_newstate(), LuaState::CustomDeleter ) { } } The problem is lua_State is incomplete type and shared_ptr constructor requires complete type. And I need safe pointer sharing. (Funny thing boost docs say most functions do not require complete type, but constructor requires, so there is no way of using it. http://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_42_0/libs/smart_ptr/smart_ptr.htm) Can can I solve this? Thank you.

    Read the article

< Previous Page | 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30  | Next Page >