kicad-developers team mailing list archive

[Dick Hollenbeck <dick@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

On 09/13/2010 10:29 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
> On 09/13/2010 09:47 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>   
>> Is there a set criteria for the Boost include files that are part of Kicad?
>> The reason I ask is I wanted to use boost::shared_ptr to solve an issue I was
>> having while working on the new component library code an found that there are
>> some missing header files that prevent using boost::shared_ptr.  This was
>> easily solved by adding the missing files to the Kicad source.  I had just
>> assumed (mistake on my part) that we were using the full Boost header install.
>>  Obviously that is not the case.  I just wanted to make sure there is no
>> technical (or philosophical) reason not to include the additional headers
>> required to use boost::shared_ptr before I make any commits.  Maybe we should
>> just include all of the Boost headers rather than a subset even though it would
>> add quite a bit of code to the Kicad source.  Anyone else have any thoughts on
>> this?
>>
>> Wayne
>>   
>>     
> I probably would never personally use shared_ptr because in my mind it
> is slightly beyond what an average C++ programmer uses on a day to day
> basis, and it obscures the clear notion of "object ownership".
>
> I have never (I am old, this is a long long time, and countless lines of
> code) been in a position where I could not assign object ownership
> clearly to one container over another.  If ever this became obscure, I
> would probably backup and take another look.
>
> Object ownership is something to keep one's eye on.
>   

I guess what I am saying is that even if you have to dedicate a
container to ownership by pointer, this frees you up to use pointers
elsewhere with no concern about ownership.  It is understood that the
dedicated container owns all the object, and it can be thought of as a
registry.

Dick