"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> 009501c2c923$b4de48a0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2">news:009501c2c923$b4de48a0$1d00a8c0@pdimov2...
>> [...]
>> shared_ptr keeps a copy of p in the "ownership policy" (the count
>> structure.) Its "storage policy" (px) doesn't own the pointer. But I may
>> be misunderstanding the context.
>
> Well, if *I* understand correctly, you have a "fat count". But since it
> is shared among pointers, it's a constant cost per object. I thought
> Dave A was talking about storing p multiple times *per pointer*.
> That's what I thought was really fat.
Yes, that's what I meant, and I wasn't suggesting that you do it. I
meant that if your other design choices weren't forcing you to do it,
you probably had a pretty efficient smart_ptr.
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
