At 10:16 AM 3/1/2003, Alisdair Meredith wrote: >Greg Colvin wrote: > >> Which is why the original releaser<> proposal is not in the standard. >> There are just too many different kinds of resource, with too many >> different ways of acquiring and releasing them. So it wasn't clear >> that any general facility could improve on just wrapping each resource >> in a class with constructors that acquire the resource and a destructor >> that releases it. > >The principle advantage the releaser<>-type class is that it gives us >something to attach policies to. It is difficult to apply policies in a >vacuum. In fact AFAICT the only purpose of this hypothetical class is >purely as a policy-holder!
Yes, and policies are one area where C++ design has made big advances since the standard library was designed. _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
