At 05:24 PM 1/19/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote: >"Terje Slettebų" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message >038e01c2bf0e$cc8f35a0$cb6c6f50@pc">news:038e01c2bf0e$cc8f35a0$cb6c6f50@pc... >>I'm also all for simplicity, cohesion, decoupling, do the simplest thing >that could possibly work (XP/pragmatic programmers), etc., and I'm sure >Andrei is, as well. After all, when Loki's typelists have been discussed, >he's stated that they are heavily KISSed. Others have argued that the >flexibility of MPL makes it worth it. So it's a little ironic situation. >:)< > >I did a good job (until now) abstaining myself from doing the **exact** >same remark... I'm not sure how an argument and its exact opposite could >lead to a congruent viewpoint. > >Back to pbd smart pointers, looks like nobody needs policy-based smart >pointers coz they're so complex and shared_ptr just works for everybody, >yet new xyz_ptr classes designed from scratch seem to appear around here >quite often :o\. I just can't stop remarking how easy they can all be >implemented as policies of Loki::SmartPtr.
In my opinion, all that stands in the way of boost::smart_ptr is the effort of submitting a proposal and seeing it through review. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
