UPDATE
This answer is rather old, and so describes what was 'good' at the time, which was smart pointers provided by the Boost library. Since C++11, the standard library has provided sufficient smart pointers types, and so you should favour the use of std::unique_ptr, std::shared_ptr and std::weak_ptr.
There was also std::auto_ptr. It was very much like a scoped pointer, except that it also had the "special" dangerous ability to be copied — which also unexpectedly transfers ownership.
It was deprecated in C++11 and removed in C++17, so you shouldn't use it.
std::auto_ptr<MyObject> p1 (new MyObject());
std::auto_ptr<MyObject> p2 = p1; // Copy and transfer ownership.
// p1 gets set to empty!
p2->DoSomething(); // Works.
p1->DoSomething(); // Oh oh. Hopefully raises some NULL pointer exception.
OLD ANSWER
A smart pointer is a class that wraps a 'raw' (or 'bare') C++ pointer, to manage the lifetime of the object being pointed to. There is no single smart pointer type, but all of them try to abstract a raw pointer in a practical way.
Smart pointers should be preferred over raw pointers. If you feel you need to use pointers (first consider if you really do), you would normally want to use a smart pointer as this can alleviate many of the problems with raw pointers, mainly forgetting to delete the object and leaking memory.
With raw pointers, the programmer has to explicitly destroy the object when it is no longer useful.
// Need to create the object to achieve some goal
MyObject* ptr = new MyObject();
ptr->DoSomething(); // Use the object in some way
delete ptr; // Destroy the object. Done with it.
// Wait, what if DoSomething() raises an exception...?
A smart pointer by comparison defines a policy as to when the object is destroyed. You still have to create the object, but you no longer have to worry about destroying it.
SomeSmartPtr<MyObject> ptr(new MyObject());
ptr->DoSomething(); // Use the object in some way.
// Destruction of the object happens, depending
// on the policy the smart pointer class uses.
// Destruction would happen even if DoSomething()
// raises an exception
The simplest policy in use involves the scope of the smart pointer wrapper object, such as implemented by boost::scoped_ptr or std::unique_ptr.
void f()
{
{
std::unique_ptr<MyObject> ptr(new MyObject());
ptr->DoSomethingUseful();
} // ptr goes out of scope --
// the MyObject is automatically destroyed.
// ptr->Oops(); // Compile error: "ptr" not defined
// since it is no longer in scope.
}
Note that std::unique_ptr instances cannot be copied. This prevents the pointer from being deleted multiple times (incorrectly). You can, however, pass references to it around to other functions you call.
std::unique_ptrs are useful when you want to tie the lifetime of the object to a particular block of code, or if you embedded it as member data inside another object, the lifetime of that other object. The object exists until the containing block of code is exited, or until the containing object is itself destroyed.
A more complex smart pointer policy involves reference counting the pointer. This does allow the pointer to be copied. When the last "reference" to the object is destroyed, the object is deleted. This policy is implemented by boost::shared_ptr and std::shared_ptr.
void f()
{
typedef std::shared_ptr<MyObject> MyObjectPtr; // nice short alias
MyObjectPtr p1; // Empty
{
MyObjectPtr p2(new MyObject());
// There is now one "reference" to the created object
p1 = p2; // Copy the pointer.
// There are now two references to the object.
} // p2 is destroyed, leaving one reference to the object.
} // p1 is destroyed, leaving a reference count of zero.
// The object is deleted.
Reference counted pointers are very useful when the lifetime of your object is much more complicated, and is not tied directly to a particular section of code or to another object.
There is one drawback to reference counted pointers — the possibility of creating a dangling reference:
// Create the smart pointer on the heap
MyObjectPtr* pp = new MyObjectPtr(new MyObject())
// Hmm, we forgot to destroy the smart pointer,
// because of that, the object is never destroyed!
Another possibility is creating circular references:
struct Owner {
std::shared_ptr<Owner> other;
};
std::shared_ptr<Owner> p1 (new Owner());
std::shared_ptr<Owner> p2 (new Owner());
p1->other = p2; // p1 references p2
p2->other = p1; // p2 references p1
// Oops, the reference count of of p1 and p2 never goes to zero!
// The objects are never destroyed!
To work around this problem, both Boost and C++11 have defined a weak_ptr to define a weak (uncounted) reference to a shared_ptr.
The do ... while and if ... else are there to make it so that a
semicolon after your macro always means the same thing. Let's say you
had something like your second macro.
#define BAR(X) f(x); g(x)
Now if you were to use BAR(X); in an if ... else statement, where the bodies of the if statement were not wrapped in curly brackets, you'd get a bad surprise.
if (corge)
BAR(corge);
else
gralt();
The above code would expand into
if (corge)
f(corge); g(corge);
else
gralt();
which is syntactically incorrect, as the else is no longer associated with the if. It doesn't help to wrap things in curly braces within the macro, because a semicolon after the braces is syntactically incorrect.
if (corge)
{f(corge); g(corge);};
else
gralt();
There are two ways of fixing the problem. The first is to use a comma to sequence statements within the macro without robbing it of its ability to act like an expression.
#define BAR(X) f(X), g(X)
The above version of bar BAR expands the above code into what follows, which is syntactically correct.
if (corge)
f(corge), g(corge);
else
gralt();
This doesn't work if instead of f(X) you have a more complicated body of code that needs to go in its own block, say for example to declare local variables. In the most general case the solution is to use something like do ... while to cause the macro to be a single statement that takes a semicolon without confusion.
#define BAR(X) do { \
int i = f(X); \
if (i > 4) g(i); \
} while (0)
You don't have to use do ... while, you could cook up something with if ... else as well, although when if ... else expands inside of an if ... else it leads to a "dangling else", which could make an existing dangling else problem even harder to find, as in the following code.
if (corge)
if (1) { f(corge); g(corge); } else;
else
gralt();
The point is to use up the semicolon in contexts where a dangling semicolon is erroneous. Of course, it could (and probably should) be argued at this point that it would be better to declare BAR as an actual function, not a macro.
In summary, the do ... while is there to work around the shortcomings of the C preprocessor. When those C style guides tell you to lay off the C preprocessor, this is the kind of thing they're worried about.
Best Answer
Succinctly, you can't.
At the time when CUR is expanded (after the second
#define), the preprocessor will replace an instance of CUR with CUR + 2, and 'blue paint' the name CUR (not expanding it any further). Thereafter, the C compiler sees CUR + 2, which most likely yields a compilation error.