To be clear, I was not talking about different ownership, but same ownership, but the same flexibility as unique_ptr provides with custom deleters.
 

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: JOHN MORRISON via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org>
Gesendet: So 16.02.2025 22:07
Betreff: Re: [std-proposals] A non-owning but self zeroing smart pointer for single ownership
An: std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org;
CC: JOHN MORRISON <inglesflamenco@hotmail.com>;

Sebastian wrote: It is possible to change the order of the types   So that unique_ptr is the template argument instead of notify_ptrs.   In that way it would work with any resource.   It would be an efficient reference-counted abstraction for any object with ownership semantics.

 

Hi Sebastian,

 

I think what you are talking about here is way outside the scope of what I'm trying to do. You seem to be talking about a more generic approach that leverages notify_ptrs to manages a wider range of ownership possibilities. But notify_ptrs is strongly wedded to the structure of unique_ptr and would not work for instance with shared_ptr. Neither would I want it to because we already have weak_ptr that.

 

I would not want to change the order of the types because that would only further obscure the fact that what you have is just the well trusted unique_ptr with a deleter hook.

 

-- 
 Std-Proposals mailing list
 Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
 https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals