My apologies in advance for the light novel. # Do you think the library should be accepted as a Boost library? Not in its current form, although I encourage cleaning it up and resubmitting it. # Your knowledge of the problem domain I've used COM smart pointers (usually CComPtr) a few times, and more rarely wrapped some other C or C-like APIs. (Although mostly pre-C++11, requiring something more hand-rolled than unique_ptr.) # What is your evaluation of the library's: ## Design The API seems reasonable for both out_ptr and inout_ptr. (Although also see the end of this post.) Actual uses for inout_ptr outside of a "realloc" type function seems a bit rare to me (and such APIs also seem rather rare), but perhaps there are other justifying cases I am not aware of, or it's more common in a particular domain. I do like that unspecified function argument evaluation order was considered, and I agree that it is better to try to maintain safety regardless of evaluation order rather than simply telling users to not access the smart pointer in other arguments -- it is a very easy trap for users to fall into, especially where the same code that has been working forever may suddenly fail with a different compiler version or different compiler settings. (Sequencing of destructor execution with additional && conditionals is admittedly a similar problem with no good solution within this design, as is explained in the caveats.) I don't like that it is left unspecified whether release() is called on construction or destruction (as that decision is left to the custom specialisations), as this potentially reintroduces that problem. I think it should be required that all specialisations behave in the following manner: For out_ptr: - construction initialises a raw ptr to nullptr and does not alter the smart ptr. - destruction resets the smart pointer to the raw ptr (in all cases). - this provides a useful guarantee that the smart ptr is always reset to nullptr if the called method returns nullptr, even if it had some other value previously. For inout_ptr: - construction get()s the current value of the smart ptr in two separate raw ptrs (one passed as the function argument, one cached for the destructor to use for comparison), but does not release() it. - destruction will (only if the raw ptr now has some different value) release()s the smart ptr and then reset()s it to the new raw ptr. - this makes it safe to use the smart ptr's value in other arguments of the method call; unspecified release() timing would have made that unsafe. (There is a slightly dodgy step in there where technically the smart pointer could be pointing at something which it thinks it owns, but that the called function has already deleted. However given that any normal or exceptional exit path would then call the inout_ptr destructor [guaranteed before the smart pointer destructor], which would safely release() the pointer without double-deleting it, this seems sufficiently safe, and worth it to permit safe argument usage. The only caveat is that usage of the smart pointer sequenced after the method call but before the destructor execution [as in additional && conditions] is not safe, as it may access deleted memory; however that code would never have the correct behaviour anyway and the documentation already warns to avoid doing that.) Perhaps there are some types of smart pointer for which this contract wouldn't work (eg. if it is possible for release() to fail, or to release a different pointer from what get() returns)? But then if so I'm not convinced it's safe to give them a uniform interface with pointers where it is safe, because otherwise inevitably someone is going to hit the unspecified-parameter-evaluation-order problem (or assuming that it will be nullptr on failure). Especially given these suggested constraints, I would prefer that a simple ADL or traits-type customisation point were added, so that you can adapt to smart pointers which merely have different spellings of the reset and release methods and don't require deeper customisation -- though the existing customisation point could be retained for especially weird smart pointer types if needed. (ADL customisation points are superior because, if designed correctly, they would not introduce a dependency on Boost.OutPtr, and if named well could theoretically also be used by other libraries, as with non-member begin and swap.) Similarly, while the static_assert check in base_out_ptr_impl specifically for std::shared_ptr and boost::shared_ptr seems valuable to prevent a significant class of bugs, I question whether it might be better handled by checking a type trait or other customisation point rather than checking directly for those types, such that it would be possible for a user-defined smart pointer type to also participate if it has a similar concern. Or perhaps it should just discourage use of shared_ptr at all; there should be little performance difference between using shared_ptr directly and using a unique_ptr which is later moved to a shared_ptr. (Since neither can take advantage of the make_shared optmisation, and by definition ownership must be unique at that point.) ## Implementation I haven't verified whether the current implementation exactly follows my suggested contract above, as there are a few too many layers of indirection and inheritance for me to easily parse. Simplifying the implementation would be nice if possible, especially for out_ptr, to improve readability. (However I think that my description is close at least.) I am strongly opposed to both of the "clever" implementations in the library. They should be completely removed. I can think of absolutely no justification (performance or otherwise) for a "clever" out_ptr. Due to both the requirement to pass in nullptr and to not delete the original smart pointer on construction (as it might be used in other parameters), the raw pointer can never have the same storage as the smart pointer anyway. (At least not unless you absolutely promise to never use a non-nullptr smart pointer, which reduces usefulness, albeit admittedly for a slightly peculiar use case [which would have been unsafe when used with raw pointers directly].) (In theory you could pass in an uninitialised raw pointer and then conditionally reset or do nothing depending on whether it still has the same uninitialised value after the call, but this both requires capturing the actual value at construction and providing a weaker contract to the C API, so it seems like a bad idea and a pessimisation to me. Another option is to unconditionally reset() on construction, but this sacrifices use in other parameters.) There is a possible justification for the clever inout_ptr, in that you can save two raw pointer copies if you reuse the smart pointer's storage, and this does not have the same caveats as with out_ptr. I am not convinced that anyone should care about that (especially in code paths also including memory allocation), although it is possible that the savings may be more significant with a smart pointer more complex than unique_ptr. Having said that, this "clever" implementation should absolutely never be used for any existing smart pointer, especially including std::unique_ptr or boost::movelib::unique_ptr. If there is sufficient justification for its existence at all, then you should instead create a new smart pointer (bikeshed: boost::out_ptr::fast_ptr) which behaves equivalent to std::unique_ptr except that you can steal its raw pointer storage when using inout_ptr. This could be made move-compatible with std::unique_ptr for the people who want to keep that type in their interfaces -- although that would presumably also remove any dubious performance benefit. As previously brought up in a separate thread, the current review implementation also leaks public inheritance of std::tuple, which is presumably intended as an empty-base optimisation, but must not be public or it will allow inappropriate slicing (and Very Bad Things™). ## Documentation The documentation seems decent, although being split into many short pages as at present can at times make it harder to locate something specific. I would prefer longer single pages divided into sections, but that's a matter of taste and not a review condition. I dislike the assertion that a "well-designed" C API would always set the parameter to nullptr on failure. That is certainly one option (and typically a preferred one), but leaving the parameter unchanged is another entirely reasonable option, and does not signify "poor design". It is only reasonable to claim poor design if the API allocates and sets the value, internally deletes it, and then reports failure (while still returning the altered and deleted pointer), as this condition cannot be handled by out_ptr (or indeed by anything that doesn't understand the failure return semantics of the API). The time axis scale in the benchmarks seems not entirely helpful as a lot of the time the difference between two implementations is within one axis division of each other. And again, the magnitude of performance difference sitting in the <1ns range in code which inherently implies memory allocation suggests a severe case of premature optimisation to me. (Though perhaps that might be more justifiable when used in non-memory handle contexts -- but then that might be an abuse of calling it a "pointer".) ## Usefulness I think that this library or something like it could be quite useful to help unify and improve safety when interacting with C-style T** APIs (or T* output arguments for some opaque handle type that requires cleanup), without requiring exploitation of operator& tricks like CComPtr does. (Sure, it's trivial to write an RAII wrapper around such APIs, but this can become cumbersome when there are hundreds or thousands of such APIs, unless you're using a code generator. And it's easy to accidentally forget subtle but important things such as deleting copy operations.) # Did you try to use the library? With what compiler? Did you have any problems? I did not try it. However the "clever" implementation is highly compiler-and-library-specific and quite aside from its design issues I think it would also produce significant portability issues. # How much effort did you put into your evaluation? I spent several hours on this review over the course of several days, and some related prior discussion in the mailing list. I read through all the documentation and most of the code (though not the tests). ============================ Having said all of the above, I wonder whether the library author has considered a different design for this functionality? Rather than the given example code: using bop = boost::out_ptr; boost::shared_ptr axis_driver(nullptr); mll_errno err = mll_driver_init( bop::out_ptr(axis_driver, mll_driver_free), /* additional args ...*/); if (err != MLL_SUCESS) { // ... } A wrapping lambda syntax could be used instead: boost::shared_ptr axis_driver(nullptr); mll_errno err = bop::invoke( [&](mll_driver** p) { return mll_driver_init(p, /* additional args ...*/); }, bop::out_ptr(axis_driver, mll_driver_free)); if (err != MLL_SUCESS) { // ... } Here, rather than its current meaning, bop::out_ptr just defines a parameter grouping which is then turned into a raw pointer-pointer argument for the lambda; it has no destructor-based shenanigans. (This could also be used for other non-pointer argument types -- there just needs to be a way for invoke to query the expected API argument type from the out_ptr or from the lambda itself.) This is admittedly more verbose than the current design (although bop::invoke could be written as just "invoke" due to ADL, for a slight simplification); but it would allow you to more safely control the sequencing between the API call and the reassignment of the smart pointer -- in particular all of the existing caveats with order of evaluations and with if-statement and composite conditional ordering no longer apply. (You can safely "&& axis_driver" above as long as you do it outside of the invoke call.) The API would be called (via the lambda) from a try-catch block inside of bop::invoke (or instead of the try-catch an RAII helper can be used to perform a try-finally action), and either the existing guarantee of not calling reset() or release() until after the call can be maintained (thereby allowing the smart pointer to be used by reference within the lambda), or it could be forbidden to use the smart pointer inside the lambda and the caller could lambda-capture the necessary arguments by value instead. Either way, the caller should be less surprised about lifetime issues across a lambda "border", and would quickly discover if they did it "wrong" (because the reset/release would either always occur before or always occur after argument evaluation, never in mixed order). invoke would normally be called with only one out_ptr or inout_ptr argument (and consequently one argument to the lambda), but could in principle be extended to any number of arguments either by nested invoke calls or by supporting a variadic form which does the equivalent within the library. It could possibly also be extended to support user-defined argument types to do something more complex, by defining a concept interface that it uses to interact with the argument, rather than explicit overloads or specialisations on those specific types. This could leave the decision of when to reset/release up to the smart-pointer-specific specialisation (if that's useful for performance reasons), and without leaving any time bombs for the caller.