It seems an easy way to circumvent a unique_ptr
is to use a pointer to the unique_ptr
object. And that's not difficult. So using the unique_ptr is sort of a gentleman's agreement and not really super enforced?
#include <iostream>
#include <memory>
using namespace std;
class Box {
public:
int num;
};
void update_box(unique_ptr<Box>* pu);
int main(){
unique_ptr<Box> b{new Box};
unique_ptr<Box>* u = &b;
update_box(u);
cout << b->num << endl; // Outputs 99.
return 0;
}
void update_box(unique_ptr<Box>* pu) {
(*pu)->num = 99;
}
std::unique_ptr is a smart pointer that owns and manages another object through a pointer and disposes of that object when the unique_ptr goes out of scope.
A unique_ptr does not share its pointer. It cannot be copied to another unique_ptr , passed by value to a function, or used in any C++ Standard Library algorithm that requires copies to be made. A unique_ptr can only be moved.
It will work. unique_ptr& operator=(nullptr_t) noexcept ; Effects: reset() .
In short: Use unique_ptr when you want a single pointer to an object that will be reclaimed when that single pointer is destroyed. Use shared_ptr when you want multiple pointers to the same resource.
C++ is, in a sense, full of gentlemen's agreements. In other words, the language gives you the ability to shoot yourself in the foot.
There is nothing to prevent you taking the address of a std::unique_ptr
. If you really find that distasteful then you could inherit from std::unique_ptr
and overload the address-of operator with a function containing a static assertion.
But even if you did that, you could circumvent that with std::addressof
!
You actually put your real question into a comment:
My understanding of
unique_ptr
is that it should be used to ensure you only have one pointer to an object at any time.
No, this is wrong. You can easily do a simple:
std::unique_ptr<int> a(new int);
int *b = a.get(); // b points to the same object as a
The design of unique_ptr
tries to ensure that you can only have one unique_ptr
to an object. But even, it can ensure this only if you don't use naked pointers. With naked pointers, it is easy to sidestep this design:
std::unique_ptr<int> a(new int);
std::unique_ptr<int> b(a.get());
Here, b
points to the same object as a
, so this program has undefined behavior (because the int
object will be deleted twice).
unique_ptr
's intent is to show ownership. As there can be only one unique_ptr
which can point to an object (ignoring the "hack" I've presented earlier), unique_ptr
owns the pointed object, and as unique_ptr
's destructor is called, it will delete the pointed object.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With