[vtk-developers] Smart pointer declaration macro?

[Jeff Baumes]

On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:37 AM, David Doria <daviddoria+vtk at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:33 AM, David Gobbi <david.gobbi at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I vote for:
>>
>> 4. vtkLocalPointer<vtkClass> instance;
>>
>>  - David
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 8:31 AM, Marcus D. Hanwell
>> <marcus.hanwell at kitware.com> wrote:
>>> On Thursday 28 January 2010 10:16:24 Jeff Baumes wrote:
>>>> On Thu, Jan 28, 2010 at 10:00 AM, Will Schroeder
>>>>
>>>> <will.schroeder at kitware.com> wrote:
>>>> > Jeff can you summarize the proposed solutions (assuming we think we've
>>>> > covered the bases) and let's take a vote on this. I want to keep my inbox
>>>> > clear :-(
>>>>
>>>> 1. Keep things the way they are:
>>>> vtkSmartPointer<vtkClass> c = vtkSmartPointer<vtkClass>::New();
>>>>
>>>> 2. Add new constructor to vtkSmartPointer that takes a bool and if
>>>> true creates an instance of the object. Code would look like:
>>>> vtkSmartPointer<vtkClass> c(true);
>>>>
>>>> 3. Create typedefs for vtkSmartPointer<vtkClass>:
>>>> vtkClassSP c = vtkClassSP::New();
>>>>
>>>> 4. Make a new vtkLocalPointer type that is the same as vtkSmartPointer
>>>> but always creates an instance of the object.
>>>> vtkLocalPointer<vtkClass> c;
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately our inboxes won't be clear until everyone responds with
>>>> a vote (I'd maybe give it till 12pm eastern time). We can take it to
>>>> the ARB if there is no clear consensus.
>>>>
>>> My favorite is 4, then 2. I was thinking of reasonably concise API, I think 1
>>> has needless repetition and does not make the code any clearer.
>>>
>>> Marcus
>
>
> Wow, is the survey THAT bad of an idea? There are now 47 emails in the
> thread, completely unmanageable.

I'm sure the issue is that people are responding to my vote email
before seeing your email with the link to the online poll. Everyone
please use the online poll, even if you've already responded by email.

Jeff