On 7/2/04 9:37 pm, in article 20040207213053.M73385@www.flemingcnc.com,
"todd" wrote:
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 01:28:38 +0000, Steve Folly wrote
The problem is to be able to chain then_ and else_ together, I have
to return a plain pointer because the if_ statement itself doesn't
know about it's shared pointer. So now, the compiler complains that
can't implicitly convert a plain if_statement pointer into a shared
pointer. And even if it could, I don't have the original shared
pointer to hand.
It looks like you can solve this by using intrusive pointers instead of shared
pointers. The compiler can implicitly convert normal pointers into intrusive
ones.
Todd
Hmmm... I've looked at our other posts in this thread and I don't think I've
really explained my problem:
I initially wanted to use shared pointers to not have to worry about memory
deallocation.
[please ignore syntax errors!]
class statement
{
public:
virtual void execute() = 0;
};
typedef shared_ptr<statement> statement_p;
class block_statement : public statement
{
public:
block_statement ();
block_statement_p add( statement_p s )
{
statements.push_back( s );
return ????;
}
private:
std::list statements;
};
typedef shared_ptr block_statement_p;
class if_statement : public statement
{
public:
if_statement ( expression_p );
if_statement_p then_( statement_p s )
{
then_statement = s;
return ????;
}
if_statement_p else_( statement_p s )
{
else_statement = s;
return ????;
}
private:
statement_p then_statement;
statement_p else_statement;
};
typedef shared_ptr if_statement_p;
// helper functions
block_statement_p block_()
{
return block_statement_p( new block_statement() );
}
if_statement_p if_( expression_p e )
{
return if_statement_p( new if_statement( e ) );
}
So... To construct a block containing two if statements:
block_p b = block_()
->add(
if_( expression )
->then( stmt2 )
->else( stmt3 )
)
->add(
if_( expression )
->then( stmt2 )
->else( stmt3 )
);
My dilemma is - what do block_statement::add, if_statement::then and
if_statement::else return? Since they have no knowledge of the shared
pointer, the best they can do is to return 'this', but block_statement::add
is expecting the shared pointer?
One solution I'm considering is to do away with the shared pointers as
parameters, but keep them internal to the classes (then_statement,
else_statement, and block_statement::statements).
The intent isn't to share statements between different parts of the script,
for example creating a single if statement and inserting it into 2 different
blocks.
So perhaps block_statement::add should be:
block_statement* add( statement* s )
{
statements.push_back( statement_p( s ) );
return this;
}
and the helper function becomes
block_statement* block_()
{
return new block_statement();
}
Ok, there is *some* danger of duplicated pointers, but I can live with that
it it's well documented. It would also makes the syntax (and implementation)
nicer!
Steve.
