"Gennadiy Rozental" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:<b2vm7o$3bn$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>... > > In that fashion it makes sense. But the only smart_ptr that will > > make any sense is scoped_ptr. Which will only implement idea #1. > > As I said my classes offer far more. > > Under smart_ptr I meant policy pased smart pointer, that supply a wide > variaty of ownership policies and allow you to write custom one.
Maybe this is a good point to bring up an old argument we had, Gennadiy. That is that the raii semantics of smart_ptr are not unique to smart_ptr. Of course we both agreed on that, but I went as far as to say that an raii class for entities that are not actually pointers should not be handled by smart_PTR at all - policy based or not, but rather by smart_resource (or some other name - but not pointer!). At the time I suggested this class should be entirely separate from smart_ptr, but I think that could be relaxed to allowing it to be a superset of smart_ptr (currently the loose concept of smart resource is a *sub*set of smart_ptr, which doesn't make sense to me). The point is that this thread has just demonstrated the confusion that arises when you start talking about smart_ptr's in the context of something that is not a pointer. Much of what we had to say before can be found here: http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/1185126 Also, some comments from Andrei: http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/1183378 There was a fair bit more discussion I could track down if it was worthwhile, but I just thought I'd bring this up again now to see if it was thought relavent. Regards, [)o IhIL.. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost