«

Michael Pradel wrote:
>
> That's one of the examples why I am looking for a general way to
> distinguish the case where the using class may delete the returned
> object and the case where it shouldn't.
>

Document what the rules are. It's not your job to force other progammers
to be competent.

--

-- Pete
Roundhouse Consulting, Ltd. (www.versatilecoding.com)
Author of "The Standard C++ Library Extensions: a Tutorial and
Reference." (www.petebecker.com/tr1book)

Michael Pradel <> wrote:

> > By simply observing a simple rule: the code responsible for allocating
> > an object is also solely responsible for that object's deallocation.
>
> That's a good solution for most of the cases, but e.g. using the Factory
> Method design pattern it doesn't make sense.

The rule also doesn't make sense for a system that makes extensive use
of smart pointers (most of which do delete objects but don't create
them.)

Just document who is in charge of deleting what and you will be fine.
It's the C++ way.

Michael Pradel wrote:
>> By simply observing a simple rule: the code responsible for allocating
>> an object is also solely responsible for that object's deallocation.
>
> That's a good solution for most of the cases, but e.g. using the Factory
> Method design pattern it doesn't make sense. Here one class is only
> responsible for creating the object while another will use it and knowns
> when to delete it.
>
> Product* Factory::create(ProductID id) {
> if (id == A) return new ProductA;
> // ...
> }
>
> That's one of the examples why I am looking for a general way to
> distinguish the case where the using class may delete the returned
> object and the case where it shouldn't.

Outside of establishing a set of rules, documenting them, and expecting
others to follow them, there is no general way to distinguish the two cases.

--
Clark S. Cox III

On Fri, 26 Jan 2007 20:26:44 +0100, Michael Pradel wrote:
>> By simply observing a simple rule: the code responsible for allocating
>> an object is also solely responsible for that object's deallocation.
>
>That's a good solution for most of the cases, but e.g. using the Factory
> Method design pattern it doesn't make sense.

only when you use F.M. like Gamma et al.

>Here one class is only
>responsible for creating the object while another will use it and knowns
>when to delete it.

It makes perfect sense when the factory remains the owner of the
created objets. This is called the "Creator as Sole Owner" pattern.
See: http://www.ddj.com/184409895 and
http://www.artima.com/intv/modern3.html

Best wishes,
Roland Pibinger

On 26 Jan, 16:51, Michael Pradel <mich...@binaervarianz.de> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I just returned to C++ after programming in other languages, and find
> myself a bit puzzled about the following issue: (see attached code).
>
> How can I avoid the deletion of an object that is returned by a method?
> Is returning a clone of it the only possibility? That would use a lot of
> memory in case of larger objects.
>
> Thanks a lot!
>
> Michael
>
> #include <iostream>
> using namespace std;
>
> class Dummy {
> public:
> int n;
>
> };class Victim {
> private:
> Dummy *d;
>
> public:
> Victim() {
> d = new Dummy();
> d->n = 23;
> }
>
> Dummy* getDummy() {
> return d;
> }
>
> };int main(int argc, char **argv) {
> Victim *v = new Victim();
> Dummy *d = v->getDummy();
>
> cout << d->n << endl;
> delete d;
> cout << d->n << endl;

Can also make destructor of object private. In code below pointer is
nullified by delete_and clean. raw delete won't compile. Of course
creating stack objects will fail too..


#include <iostream>

template <typename T>
inline
void delete_and_clean ( T* & rp)
{
delete rp;
rp =0;
}

struct my{
int n;
my():n(42){}

private:
friend void delete_and_clean<my> ( my* & );
~my(){}
};

int main()
{
my * p = new my;

if ( p ){
std::cout << p->n << '\n';
}

//compile fail due to private dtor
// delete p;

delete_and_clean(p);

if ( p ){
std::cout << "Bad news : " << p->n << '\n';
}
else {
std::cout << "p died\n";
}

}

"kwikius" <> wrote:

> Can also make destructor of object private. In code below pointer is
> nullified by delete_and clean. raw delete won't compile. Of course
> creating stack objects will fail too..
>
>
> #include <iostream>
>
> template <typename T>
> inline
> void delete_and_clean ( T* & rp)
> {
> delete rp;
> rp =0;
> }
>
> struct my{
> int n;
> my():n(42){}
>
> private:
> friend void delete_and_clean<my> ( my* & );
> ~my(){}
> };
>
> int main()
> {
> my * p = new my;
>
> if ( p ){
> std::cout << p->n << '\n';
> }
>
> //compile fail due to private dtor
> // delete p;
>
> delete_and_clean(p);
>
> if ( p ){
> std::cout << "Bad news : " << p->n << '\n';
> }
> else {
> std::cout << "p died\n";
> }
>
> }

But anyone who has access to delete_and_clean can delete the object, so
that doesn't restrict access...

You could make op& private and not implement it. Then the only parts of
the code that can delete the object will be those that have a pointer to
it. Then restrict who has a pointer to the object (other code only gets
references to the object.) Of course, then you won't be able to put the
object in any standard containers.

Another idea is to wrap the object in a smart pointer that doesn't
implement op*() [it only implements op->()]. But then the caller will be
unable to pass the object to something that requires a reference.

Frankly, I think any solution would cause more problems than it solves.
Just document ownership, that's all you can do.

Michael,

Make Dummy destructor private and class Victim a friend as follows:

class Dummy {
public:
int n;
private:
~Dummy() {}
friend class Victim;
};

The compiler will reject the delete code in main() with something
like:
F:\dummy\dummy.cpp(3 : error C2248: 'Dummy::~Dummy' : cannot access
private member declared in class 'Dummy'
but will allow delete of Dummy's by Victim.

....AndrewD...

"AndrewD" <> wrote:

> Michael,
>
> Make Dummy destructor private and class Victim a friend as follows:
>
> class Dummy {
> public:
> int n;
> private:
> ~Dummy() {}
> friend class Victim;
> };

Now Dummy can't be created by any other class than Victim. That's a
rather draconian restriction just to safe-guard some data from delete.

On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:00:50 GMT, "Daniel T." <> wrote:

>"AndrewD" <> wrote:
>
>> Michael,
>>
>> Make Dummy destructor private and class Victim a friend as follows:
>>
>> class Dummy {
>> public:
>> int n;
>> private:
>> ~Dummy() {}
>> friend class Victim;
>> };
>
>Now Dummy can't be created by any other class than Victim. That's a
>rather draconian restriction just to safe-guard some data from delete.

How's that? The default constructor is still public. Anyone can construct
dummy, but only Victim (or Dummy) can destroy it.

-dr

Dave Rahardja <> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jan 2007 17:00:50 GMT, "Daniel T." <> wrote:
> >"AndrewD" <> wrote:
> >
> >> Michael,
> >>
> >> Make Dummy destructor private and class Victim a friend as follows:
> >>
> >> class Dummy {
> >> public:
> >> int n;
> >> private:
> >> ~Dummy() {}
> >> friend class Victim;
> >> };
> >
> >Now Dummy can't be created by any other class than Victim. That's a
> >rather draconian restriction just to safe-guard some data from delete.
>
> How's that? The default constructor is still public. Anyone can construct
> dummy, but only Victim (or Dummy) can destroy it.

Sorry, I was thinking about auto variables, however as a practical
matter not being able to destroy what you create can be a big problem.