Convert a raw pointer to a clone_ptr
I have a clone_ptr implementation, as was shown in this question and I have a problem where I need to create a clone_ptr from a ra开发者_如何学Gow pointer returned from a function.
Here is the code:
DOMDocument* doc = impl->createDocument(
0, // root element namespace URI.
XML::X(docname.c_str()), // root element name
0); // document type object (DTD).
document.get() = *doc; //No way to assign clone_ptr document to raw doc pointer
Where document
& impl
are declared as follows:
clone_ptr<DOMImplementation, default_clone<DOMImplementation> > impl;
clone_ptr<DOMDocument, default_clone<DOMDocument> > document;
The createDocument
function above returns a raw DOMDocument
pointer and is assigned to the local variable doc
, now I want to get my document clone_ptr and actually pass it the raw pointer gotten from the create document function. It seems however the compiler is not too happy with this as it says the following:
error C2440: '=' : cannot convert from 'xercesc_3_1::DOMDocument' to 'clone_ptr<T,Cloner>::pointer'
with
[
T=xercesc_3_1::DOMDocument,
Cloner=default_clone<xercesc_3_1::DOMDocument>
]
So my question is how can I allow a raw pointer to be explicitly or implicitly converted to a clone_ptr
?
EDIT:
Clone specialization:
template<typename T>
struct default_clone
{
static T* clone(T* pPtr)
{
return pPtr ? pPtr->clone() : 0;
}
};
template<>
struct default_clone<DOMDocument>
{
static DOMDocument* clone(DOMDocument* pPtr)
{
DOMImplementation* impl = DOMImplementationRegistry::getDOMImplementation(XML::X("Core"));
return pPtr ? impl->createDocument(0, XML::X(""), 0) : 0;
}
};
template<>
struct default_clone<DOMImplementation>
{
static DOMImplementation* clone(DOMImplementation* pPtr)
{
return pPtr ? DOMImplementationRegistry::getDOMImplementation(XML::X("Core")) : 0;
}
};
Giving your clone_ptr
implementation, and the fact that doc
is a pointer, wouldn't it be document.reset(doc)
?
I don't know the library but would be very surprised if document.get() returned an l-value (thus your assigning something to it seems rather strange). That doesn't mean it won't compile as very few people implement return types as const (ie. returning a constant as the temporary), just that the assign won't have the desired effect.
精彩评论