Namespaces
Variants
Views
Actions

Talk:cpp/memory/shared ptr

From cppreference.com

For some reason, in the "Implementation Notes" section, the link to "allocate_shared" links to "http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/shared_ptr/allocate_sharod", both on hover, copy, and click. Looking at the markup, the referred-to page-name looks correctly spelt... I don't get it. Manually going to http://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/memory/shared_ptr/allocate_shared works.

It's a typo in MediaWiki:Simple-search-list and MediaWiki:Geshi-keyword-list-cpp, User:P12 can fix that. --Cubbi 11:45, 6 June 2012 (PDT)
Fixed. Thanks. -- P12 13:01, 6 June 2012 (PDT)

[edit] missing operator->*

Is there a reason why shared_ptr does not overload operator->*? That operator would ease the access of the pointee's member via "pointer to member":

I'd like to access them via shp->*member but that does not work, and I have to write (*shp).*member which looks awkward and unnaturally to me. --31.18.70.70 06:37, 15 December 2014 (PST)

You could also write shp.get()->*member or (&*shp)->*member if you want the correct operator to be called. Some early smart pointers overloaded ->*, but the boost implementation of shared_ptr, on which C++ is based, didn't. I see it was recently brought up on stackoverflow with no conclusive answer. --Cubbi (talk) 06:50, 15 December 2014 (PST)

[edit] shared_ptr for arrays wasn't applied to WP

std::shared_ptr for arrays from libfun1 was approved by LWG to merge into C++17, but the wording didn't match up and the editor bumped this part back to LWG for a more precise wording.. Should we undo the changes here? It's pretty certain it will be part of C++17 since it passed all approvers, it was just a merge conflict. (note; the changes were [1] [2] [3] [4] [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and new pages cpp/memory/shared_ptr/operator_at and Template:cpp/memory/shared ptr/dsc operator at ) --Cubbi (talk)

Oh hm. I'm okay with leaving it here. Implementations have been running so far ahead of the standard lately that it seems like doing so will be pretty harmless. --Nate (talk) 19:44, 3 April 2016 (PDT)