为什么没有bada需要scoped_ptr？ [英] Why didn't bada require scoped_ptr?

问题描述

bada C ++风格指南/架构使用

为什么它们不需要使用scoped_ptr？

但我怀疑他们的答案将会是：在页面顶部附近以粗体书写的相同：没有两阶段构造，资源泄漏。

我不同意这个评估;真正的问题是他们的 ComplexClass 构造函数体不是异常安全的。在这种情况下，代码将具有更强大的 与简单的RAII，，特别是它缩放。

关于为什么他们不需要scoped_ptr：我想象这是一个C ++ 03文档，谈论C ++，而不是第三方库。

The bada C++ style guide/architecture uses a two-step initialization of C++ objects.

Why did they not simply require the use of scoped_ptr?

解决方案

You should ask them, because I am not a psychic.

However I suspect their answer will be the same as is written in bold near the top of that page: "Without two-phase construction, resource leak occurs".

I disagree with this assessment, though; the real problem is that their ComplexClass constructor body is not exception-safe. With that in place, the code will be far more robust with simple RAII, especially as it scales.

In terms of "why did they not simply require scoped_ptr": I'd imagine it's a C++03 document that's talking about C++, not third party libraries.

这篇关于为什么没有bada需要scoped_ptr？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持IT屋！