On Fri, 3 Oct 2003 15:11:13 +0200 (CEST) Robert Vazan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
RV> On Thu, 2 Oct 2003 11:58:49 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) Vadim Zeitlin RV> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: RV> RV> > Anyhow, I surely don't have anything against trying to use them -- just RV> > please make sure that the changes cab be rolled back (i.e. tag the sources RV> > before your changes). RV> RV> I didn't tag them. I am not yet sure about conversion from macros to RV> templates. I am going to use it only for new changes for a while. That's RV> not too much to roll back manually. No, but tagging doesn't cost much... Anyhow, just one point: I realized that I don't understand at all what is your objection to shared_ptr<> is. You can use shared_ptr<incomplete_type>, the only requirment is that the type be complete at the point where the destructor is called. If the dtor of containing class is not inline, it should be ok... Regards, VZ ------------------------------------------------------- This sf.net email is sponsored by:ThinkGeek Welcome to geek heaven. http://thinkgeek.com/sf _______________________________________________ Mahogany-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mahogany-developers
