On Thursday 28 August 2003 06:26 pm, E. Gladyshev wrote:
> --- Gregory Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Perhaps because you work with the authors of the documentation to
> > make it sure it says what needs saying?
>
> Are the documentation authors monitoring this mailing list?
The developers generally write the documentation, or at the very least have
authority over what it says.
> How about
>
> template< typename T, typename Counter = int >
> shared_ptr
> {
> typedef Counter counter; //counter type should be public
>
> template <typename DataAlloc = std::allocator<T>, typename
> CounterAlloc=std::allocator<counter>
>
> shared_ptr( const DataAlloc& da = DataAlloc(), const IntAlloc ia& =
> CountAlloc() ); };
I suggest that you:
(1) flesh out the interface you want,
(2) decide what the specific semantics of the interface are, and
(3) put together at least a toy implementation (at least try to compile the
interface specification; the above isn't valid C++, for instance); then
(4) start a new thread to discuss the semantics you need and the syntax you
want.
> Actually this is probably what the whole thread is about
> to get people to try to find the best practicle solution
> for memory management in the modern C++ age.
> I am not sure that STL style allocators is the best
> possible solution.
Nor is anyone else. But the point is that grand visions cannot go anywhere
without specific examples. Remember: Boost policies are implemented bottom-up
not top-down.
You have suggested a way to fix your problem for shared_ptr, and I suggest you
follow my recommendation above to come up with a proposal that does what you
need (but do note the comments Peter has already made regarding interfaces
similar to the one you suggest above).
Doug
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
