"Beman Dawes" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message [EMAIL PROTECTED]">news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]... > * Should a PBSP supply policies that are prone to be used unsafely? > > I'd say "no" is an acceptable answer, at least for something like the T* > conversion in widely used libraries like the Standard Library and Boost. > > * Should a PBSP allow user supplied policies to modify interface, perhaps > in ways that may be unsafe or even just unfortunate? > > That's tougher. At some point I lose interest in a PBSP if it prevents me > from doing the things I want to do, even if I only want to do them in the > privacy of my own code.
The original SmartPtr design leaves the onus of choosing the right policy combination to the application designer. To me, that's a design I find reasonable and in keep with the spirit of C++. Safer designs are possible that reject policy combinations that "don't go together" at the price of being more complicated or less efficient or less flexible. Andrei _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
