"David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > [...] > Didn't we decide weak_ptr isn't a _ptr after all? If so, doesn't that > get Dave off the hook for trying to support it using the smart_ptr > facade?
That will be my excuse, anyway. I'll just say that weak_ptr ought to be a separate type altogether. ;) Dave _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
