"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message b19ic3$m48$[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:b19ic3$m48$[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > Indeed. My new suggested change involves breaking orthogonality > in a way that I think even Beman suggested, if memory serves me > correctly.
Ideally, SmartPtr should orchestrate the workings of the policies together while they are aloof of each other. In this particular case, if we are to apply this approach, it seems like SmartPtr should detect that the appropriate ownership policy fails to construct, and should say "never mind" to the storage policy by triggering its destruction. This sounds like a reasonable approach to me. It looks like SmartPtr cannot apply this simple algorithm due to syntactic and semantic issues of the language, which some (including me) deem as problems with the language. So my suggestion is to work around the language instead of breaking orthogonality gratuitously. I believe this is NOT an example when orthogonality plays against you. Andrei _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
