Should I upstream my "smart-pointer" class nb_class_ptr<T> and its companion make_nb_class<T> ?

[hawkinsp]

I have a pair of utilities that I use widely in my code, defined here:
https://github.com/openxla/xla/blob/main/xla/python/nb_class_ptr.h

• nb_class_ptr<T>: is a subclass of nb::object that is analogous to std::shared_ptr<T>, but for objects known to nanobind that are allocated on the Python heap and that use Python reference counting.
• make_nb_class<T>: is analogous to std::make_shared<T>. This allocates and constructs an object of type T in place on the Python heap, and returns an nb_class_ptr<T>.

Are these things that you might be interested in accepting as contributions upstream, in some form?

[wjakob]

Hi @hawkinsp -- thank you for suggesting this. I had a look and think it's a bit too specific for inclusion in nanobind. The more important thing to me is that the low level functionality exists to enable such extensions.