Home of Testers

[Cem.Kaner]

On Apr 28, 12:17 pm, gpderetta <gpdere...@gmail.com> wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> On Apr 28, 11:12 am, James Kanze <james.ka...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 24, 11:53 pm, "Bo Persson" <b...@gmb.dk> wrote:
> > > osama...@gmail.com wrote:
> > [...]
> > > > Does that mean references and templates are not to be mixed?
> > > No, they work very well together. I think the void* is the
> > > problem here, and that you are trying too hard to optimize the
> > > code.
> > > I would trust my compiler here, and just write
> > > template<class T>
> > > class GenericQueue
> > > {
> > > bool Pop(T&);
> > > };
> > Given that he requires pointer semantics, and copying a pointer
> > cannot throw, there's no reason not to just use
> > T* pop() ;
> > in the generic interface.
> > > if that is the interface needed (it probably is not - take a
> > > look at std::queue and std::stack).
> > There's a slight difference. The standard containers are
> > designed to store values, not (only) pointers. So the
> > alternatives are:
> > -- return a T, but not be thread safe,
> > [...]
> > Globally, I think the first alternative was dismissed because of
> > the lack of thread safety (although I think it was what was used
> > in the original STL); of the latter two, the last seems to offer
> > the most flexibility, and was chosen.
> IIRC, it had more to do with exception safety: if the copy
> constructor throws an exception when returning the pop'd
> object, you will lose the object with no way to recover it (it
> has already been removed from the internal queue). There is
> no such a problem with the separated 'T&top()' and 'void
> pop()'


Yes. I don't know why I wrote thread---the issue was definitely
exceptions, and the impossibility to offer a strong guarantee.

--
James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.ka...@gmail.com
Conseils en informatique orient�e objet/
Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung
9 place S�mard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'�cole, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34