Peter Dimov wrote: > > And what if you use the deallocator as a template parameter?
> > Anyway: Do you know any smart-pointer class, which supports custom > > deallocator and can transfer ownership? (auto_ptr does not support > > custom deallocator and either smart_ptr or shared_ptr does not support > > release() method). > Both good questions. Do we have an answer? These both sound like questions to be solved by the policy-pointer David Held is formalising as we speak [based strongly on Andrei Alexandrescu's smart_pointer class in the Loki library/Modern C++ Design book] I would be worried to see extra template parameters appearing in shared_pointer, as the big advantage it overs over the full-blown policy implemetation is its simplicity to the user. If that simplicity is no longer enough, then maybe you do need the full policy implementation. I too worry a little about increasing the size of my pointers with an unused deallocator, but nothing in my profiling has suggested this is a real problem in practice, simply an implementation detail I am concerned about because I know it is there. This is one of the trade-offs of trying to use a general-purpose library. Well, that's my take on it anyway <g> -- AlisdairM _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
