Re: [boost] Re: SmartPtr (Loki) - auto_ptr/move c'tor issue

[Beman Dawes]

At 05:41 PM 1/30/2003, David B. Held wrote:

>"Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
>[EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>> [...]
>> Which is the best approach is very application dependent. I never
>> came to a firm conclusion as to which approach was better for
>> smart pointers; both have advantages.
>
>Well, we've managed to hobble along with "absolute orthogonality"
>so far, so we'll see how long that pans out. Seems to be holding up
>pretty well. It forces you to think very carefully about your design,
>that's for sure.

The use case I was interested in was an array being managed, and the conversion to T* also being present.

The difficulty, of course, is that the public interface has to change based on the interaction between two policies. The problem didn't arise in the original Loki::smart_ptr because it didn't allow arrays.

(If that isn't clear, let me know and I'll show the actual signatures needed for the various cases. It's been a long day and my mind is shutting down at the moment.)

--Beman


_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost