StackOverflow2013

Note that there are some explanatory texts on larger screens.

plurals

PO
primarykey
Id
4429642
data
AcceptedAnswerId
0
AnswerCount
0
ClosedDate
CommentCount
1
CommunityOwnedDate
CreationDate
2010-12-13T14:11:00.207
FavoriteCount
0
LastActivityDate
2010-12-13T14:11:00.207
LastEditDate
LastEditorUserId
0
OwnerUserId
51831
ParentId
4429417
PostTypeId
2
Score
7
ViewCount
0
LastEditorDisplayName
text
Body
<blockquote> Furthermore, it doesn't seem make sense to typedef boost::shared_ptr during the declaration of Widget itself—we seem to be mixing Widget's declaration with an anticipation of how clients will make use of the Widget interface. </blockquote> First of all, this is not at all wrong - after all, the means of how the clients will (and can) use the interface is part of the interface itself; and for C++, not being garbage-collected, memory management of objects is a rather crucial part of their interface. So there are two cases. In one case, the <code>Widget</code> would anticipate it would be used through a shared pointer. This would mean that eg. child widgets obtained from a widget are returned as <code>shared_ptr</code>s, everywidget created has it <code>shared_ptr</code> and so on. It would be totally legitimate to typedef <code>WidgetPtr</code> in the same header as <code>Widget</code>. In the second case, <code>Widget</code>s would expect to be managed eg. by ordinary <code>new</code> and <code>delete</code>. The clients can use <code>shared_ptr</code>s in special cases, but nothing says eg. a printer dialogue routine can't use <code>auto_ptr</code> instead. The clients have to be prepared that if <code>wptr</code> is a <code>shared_ptr</code>, the line <pre><code>shared_ptr<Widget> w2(wptr->firstChild()->parent()); </code></pre> leads to a disaster. Your question seems to indicate the latter is your case. So IMHO, what you've done is OK. The clients can choose their means of managing <code>Widget</code> objects, as long as it doesn't affect other clients.
Tags
Title
singulars
PostAcceptedAnswerId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostParentId
1. POWhat's the best strategy for typedef'ing shared pointers?
 singulars
 PostTypePostTypeId
 PTQuestion
PostTypePostTypeId
1. PTAnswer
UserLastEditorUserId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
UserOwnerUserId
1. USjpalecek
plurals
PostLinksPostIdRelatedPostId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostLinksRelatedPostIdPostId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostsAcceptedAnswerId
1. This table or related slice is empty.
PostsParentIdCreationDate
1. This table or related slice is empty.
VotesPostIdCreationDate
1. VO
 singulars
 PostPostId
 PO
 UserUserId
 This table or related slice is empty.
 VoteTypeVoteTypeId
 VTUpMod
2. VO
 singulars
 PostPostId
 PO
 UserUserId
 This table or related slice is empty.
 VoteTypeVoteTypeId
 VTUpMod
3. VO
 singulars
 PostPostId
 PO
 UserUserId
 This table or related slice is empty.
 VoteTypeVoteTypeId
 VTUpMod
CommentsPostId
1. COYes, my sketch very much suggested that the latter is the case; thanks for the feedback.
 singulars
 PostPostId
 PO
 UserUserId
 USMarc

Querying!

Guidance

A row detail

Detail views are divided into sections. All the information in the data section comes from columns in the selected row. The other sections display data from other, related rows.

Related data can be related in a to-one or a to-many fashion. Captions of data related in a to-many fashion link to a list view showing a filtered view of the table.

Try moving around until you find a non-empty to-many entry and click on the label to get to one. You can move back to the root by clicking on the database name in the header.