Nicola Musatti wrote: > I don't have a strong opinion in either direction, but I do feel that > it > is important that this is thought over. Overloading checked_delete() > on purpose in a user defined namespace might be considered a way to > provide > a smart pointer with a custom deleter. Is this really something bad?
No, this is not inherently bad per se. It's just not what checked_deleter is supposed to do, according to its current specification. It is documented to invoke "delete p", not to call checked_delete. It is an implementation detail (having something to do with HP aCC if I recall correctly but I may be wrong) that checked_deleter is implemented in terms of checked_delete. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
