I have a project which I would like to make more use of smart pointers. Overall, I have been successful in this goal. However, I\'ve come across one things which I\'m not sure w
Using std::auto_ptr
is the good practice, in fact such example was suggested
by Bjarne Stroustrup.
The move semantics of auto_ptr
gives you right tools to deal with it.
For example:
auto_ptr<Foo> make_foo()
{
return auto_ptr<Foo>(new Foo);
}
Foo *raw_pointer=make_foo().release();
shared_ptr<Foo> shared_pointer=make_foo();
auto_ptr<Foo> auto_pointer=make_foo();
If you return shared_ptr
you can't fallback to normal pointer, with auto_ptr
you can. You can allways upgrade auto_ptr
to shared but not other direction.
Another important point, shared_ptr
uses atomic reference-counting, that is much slower
that simple and yet fully efficient job that auto_ptr
does.
P.S.: scoped_ptr
is just version of auto_ptr
for poors --- it is non-copyable and does
not have default constuctor. It is more like "less confusing" version of auto_ptr
, in comparison to shared_ptr
it is not in tr1. Generally there no much advantages of using
scoped_ptr
over auto_ptr
With C++11 you should be able to use std::unique_ptr
as the other smart pointer types have constructors that take a std::unique_ptr
. If you maintain an internal list of such resources then you'd probably want to use std::shared_ptr
.
If you build a factory that's ok that you simply return a pointer. And the user of your factory can make his own decision how to and where to put this pointer.
If you need to enforce to use smart pointer you have to restrict choice as you don't want them to use "wrong" ones.
So boost::shared_ptr. But better to typedef it then to MyClassPtr or MyClass::ptr.
Still, factories they are like "new". When I want I put result of new inside of std::auto_ptr. But I don't want to be forced to call "release" all the times when I don't want smart pointer.