Hello Daniel, I thought about such a class as well. The main disadvantage of it is that it is impossible to use with standard containers. :( Standard containers (e.g. std::vector) pre-allocate space for some number of instances and use the placement new operator to place items in the pre-allocated memory and when deriving form nondynamic makes it impossible. With kind regards, Ovanes On Fri, Mar 28, 2008 at 10:40 AM, Daniel Lidström <daniel.lidstrom@sbg.se> wrote:

Hi there!

(I recently posted a similar message to microsoft.public.vc.language, but the response was so bad I thought I would post here instead.)

I have created a utility class that I think is useful, called nondynamic. The purpose is sort of like boost::noncopyable, but I disallow any dynamic/ pointer usages. For example, & and -> are disabled. Operator new/delete as well. Let me show nondynamic:

// all members are private class nondynamic { // disallow operator new static void* operator new(std::size_t); static void* operator new(std::size_t, const std::nothrow_t&) throw(); static void* operator new[](std::size_t); static void* operator new[](std::size_t, const std::nothrow_t&) throw();

// disallow operator delete static void operator delete(void*){} static void operator delete(void*, const std::nothrow_t&) throw(){} static void operator delete[](void*){} static void operator delete[](void*, const std::nothrow_t&) throw(){}

// disallow address-of const nondynamic* operator&() const; /* */ nondynamic* operator&() /* */;

// disallow -> const nondynamic* operator->() const; /* */ nondynamic* operator->() /* */; };

Using this class is as simple as using boost::noncopyable:

struct DataIO : private nondynamic { ... };

Now you are only able to use DataIO as a value type. All other usages are disabled. I think this promotes safe programming, in that pointer usage is minimized (it seems with pointers, new/delete/null is never far away).

Let me illustrate how this class can be used most effectively. I thought it would be nice to use nondynamic when you have a class hierarchy, and a factory method.

Here's the base class:

struct IDataIO { virtual void Write(const std::string& str) = 0; virtual void Read(char* buffer, std::size_t size) = 0; }; typedef boost::shared_ptr<IDataIO> IDataIOPtr;

A sample subclass:

struct SerialDataIO : IDataIO { void Write(const std::string&) { std::cout << __FUNCTION__ << std::endl; } void Read(char*, std::size_t) { std::cout << __FUNCTION__ << std::endl; } };

Here's the wrapper class that inherits from nondynamic:

struct DataIO : IDataIO, private nondynamic { DataIO(IDataIOPtr dataIO) : mDataIO(dataIO) {}

void Write(const std::string& str) { mDataIO->Write(str); } void Read(char* buffer, std::size_t size) { mDataIO->Read(buffer, size); }

private:

IDataIOPtr mDataIO; };

And finally, the factory: DataIO CreateDataIO(int i) { if( i==0 ) return IDataIOPtr(new SerialDataIO); else throw std::runtime_error("Could not create DataIO"); }

Now the clients of the class hierarchy uses the wrapper, and are completely isolated from pointers:

DataIO dataIO = CreateDataIO(0); dataIO.Write("Hello"); char buffer[1024]; dataIO.Read(buffer, sizeof(buffer));

It should be impossible to misuse DataIO. What do you think about nondynamic? Is it implemented correctly? Named appropriately? Useful at all? Any comments gladly accepted :-)

Thanks in advance!

-- Daniel _______________________________________________ Boost-users mailing list Boost-users@lists.boost.org http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost-users