Sign Up

Sign Up to our social questions and Answers Engine to ask questions, answer people’s questions, and connect with other people.

Have an account? Sign In

Have an account? Sign In Now

Sign In

Login to our social questions & Answers Engine to ask questions answer people’s questions & connect with other people.

Sign Up Here

Forgot Password?

Don't have account, Sign Up Here

Forgot Password

Lost your password? Please enter your email address. You will receive a link and will create a new password via email.

Have an account? Sign In Now

You must login to ask a question.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

Please briefly explain why you feel this question should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this answer should be reported.

Please briefly explain why you feel this user should be reported.

Sign InSign Up

The Archive Base

The Archive Base Logo The Archive Base Logo

The Archive Base Navigation

  • SEARCH
  • Home
  • About Us
  • Blog
  • Contact Us
Search
Ask A Question

Mobile menu

Close
Ask a Question
  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Feed
  • User Profile
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Buy Points
  • Users
  • Help
  • Buy Theme
  • SEARCH
Home/ Questions/Q 979669
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Editorial Team
Asked: May 16, 20262026-05-16T04:15:20+00:00 2026-05-16T04:15:20+00:00

I’d like to reduce some visual noise in the code and hide shared_ptr behind

  • 0

I’d like to reduce some visual noise in the code and hide shared_ptr behind a typedef like this:

typedef boost::shared_ptr<SomeLongClass> SomeLongClassPtr;

So this:

void foo(const boost::shared_ptr<SomeLongClass>& a,
         boost::shared_ptr<SomeLongClass>& b);

becomes this:

void foo(const SomeLongClassPtr& a, SomeLongClassPtr& b);

On the other hand I’m worried that I’m reducing the explicitness of the code.

Which is a better style?

  • 1 1 Answer
  • 0 Views
  • 0 Followers
  • 0
Share
  • Facebook
  • Report

Leave an answer
Cancel reply

You must login to add an answer.

Forgot Password?

Need An Account, Sign Up Here

1 Answer

  • Voted
  • Oldest
  • Recent
  • Random
  1. Editorial Team
    Editorial Team
    2026-05-16T04:15:20+00:00Added an answer on May 16, 2026 at 4:15 am

    Given that std::string is itself a typedef, I think you are fine. I do it myself.

    Even Scott Meyers recommends typedef for ease of reading code in cases like yours.


    EDIT:
    Effective C++, Second Edition, Page 120, Item 28, fourth paragraph. “…provide typedefs that remove the need…”

    More Effective C++, 7th printing, Page 237, Item 31 First paragraph.

    More Effective C++, 7th printing, Page 238, Item 31 First paragraph after code sample.


    In essence, no worries. 🙂

    • 0
    • Reply
    • Share
      Share
      • Share on Facebook
      • Share on Twitter
      • Share on LinkedIn
      • Share on WhatsApp
      • Report

Sidebar

Explore

  • Home
  • Add group
  • Groups page
  • Communities
  • Questions
    • New Questions
    • Trending Questions
    • Must read Questions
    • Hot Questions
  • Polls
  • Tags
  • Badges
  • Users
  • Help
  • SEARCH

Footer

© 2021 The Archive Base. All Rights Reserved
With Love by The Archive Base

Insert/edit link

Enter the destination URL

Or link to existing content

    No search term specified. Showing recent items. Search or use up and down arrow keys to select an item.