Problem: Unique_ptrs express ownership well, but cannot have their object lifetimes tracked by weak_ptrs. Shared_ptrs can be tracked by weak_ptrs but do not express ownership clearly.
Proposed solution: Derive a new pointer type (I'm going to call it strong_ptr) that is simply a shared_ptr but with the copy constructor and assignment operator deleted, so that it is hard to clone them. We then create another new borrowed_ptr type (which is not easily storable) to handle the temporary lifetime extension required when the weak_ptr accesses the object, and can thereby avoid using shared_ptrs explicitly anywhere.
This question Non-ownership copies of std::unique_ptr adn this one Better shared_ptr by distinct types for "ownership" and "reference"? are both similar but in both cases the choice is framed as simply unique_ptr vs shared_ptr and the answer does not propose a satisfactory solution to my mind. (Perhaps I should be answering those questions instead of asking a new one? Not sure what the correct etiquette is in this case.)
Here's a basic stab. Note that in order to avoid the user of the weak pointer having to convert to shared_ptr to use it, I create a borrowed_ptr type (thanks rust for the name) which wraps shared_ptr but makes it hard for the user to accidentally store it. So by using differently hamstrung shared_ptr derivatives we can express the intended ownership and guide the client code into correct usage.
#include <memory>
template <typename T>
// This owns the memory
class strong_ptr : public std::shared_ptr<T> {
public:
strong_ptr() = default;
strong_ptr(T* t) : std::shared_ptr<T>(t) {}
strong_ptr(const strong_ptr&) = delete;
strong_ptr& operator=(const strong_ptr&) = delete;
};
template <typename T>
// This can temporarily extend the lifetime but is intentionally hard to store
class borrowed_ptr : public std::shared_ptr<T> {
public:
borrowed_ptr() = delete;
borrowed_ptr(const borrowed_ptr&) = delete;
borrowed_ptr& operator=(const borrowed_ptr&) = delete;
template <typename T>
static borrowed_ptr borrow(const std::weak_ptr<T>& wp)
{
return wp.lock();
}
private:
borrowed_ptr(std::shared_ptr<T> &sp) : std::shared_ptr<T>(sp) {}
};
This seems fairly simple and an improvement over shared_ptr, but I cannot find any discussion of such a technique, so I can only imagine that I have missed an obvious flaw.
Can anyone give me a concrete reason why this is a bad idea? (And yes I know this is less efficient than unique_ptr - for PIMPL and so on I would still use unique_ptr.)
Caveat: I haven't yet used this in any more than a basic example, but this compiles and runs ok:
struct xxx
{
int yyy;
double zzz;
};
struct aaa
{
borrowed_ptr<xxx> naughty;
};
void testfun()
{
strong_ptr<xxx> stp = new xxx;
stp->yyy = 123;
stp->zzz = 0.456;
std::weak_ptr<xxx> wkp = stp;
// borrowed_ptr<xxx> shp = wkp.lock(); <-- Fails to compile as planned
// aaa badStruct { borrowed_ptr<xxx>::borrow(wkp) }; <-- Fails to compile as planned
// aaa anotherBadStruct; <-- Fails to compile as planned
borrowed_ptr<xxx> brp = borrowed_ptr<xxx>::borrow(wkp); // Only way to create the borrowed pointer
// std::cout << "wkp: " << wkp->yyy << std::endl; <-- Fails to compile as planned
std::cout << "stp: " << stp->yyy << std::endl; // ok
std::cout << "bp: " << brp->yyy << std::endl; // ok
}
