Now basing the flyweight "key" on the object's ref-address also makes it much harder to accidentally modify the key, you don't need any seperate algorithm to generate unique keys, and since all objects have a ref-address, you can inherit from any "normal" class with an inside-out subclass and vice-versa (vice-versa provided the top-class propagates DESTROY).
Now, there is only a problem with this approach if you use ithreads. I don't know about you, but I've not used ithreads except as a toy; for me, I'm not sure that the benefits of ithreads are worth the risk :-) It's not like they're completely devoid of bugs and caveats.
Update: I completely glossed over the win32 fork() problems. I didn't even know that a fork() on win32 would modify your ref-address (I use win32 only when I *really* have to). Still, I can imagine situations where you'd want the above code, but I'd use a special-purpose flyweight key if I'd have a choice in the matter.
In reply to Re^2: Threads and fork and CLONE, oh my!
by Joost
in thread Threads and fork and CLONE, oh my!
by xdg
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |