>From: "Greg Colvin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> At 07:33 AM 1/18/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
> >
> >It is not simply declaration complexity that Dave's talking about - it
can
> >be avoided by making smart_ptr be shared_ptr by using default
> >parameters. It is semantic complexity. shared_ptr is fairly dee
Greg Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One aspect of the semantic complexity that bothers me
> is that the various flavors of smart pointer may not
> be interchangeable. shared_ptr is partly parameterized
> on implementation, but the interface and semantics
> remain the same. For a policy-bas
At 07:33 AM 1/18/2003, Peter Dimov wrote:
>From: "Terje Slettebø" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> >
>> > Please don't take this to mean I'm against a
>> > policy-based smart pointer; quite the opposite. I've
>> > said all along it would be great to have one in
>From: "Peter Dimov" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> From: "Terje Slettebø" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > I understand the concern. For one thing, we don't have template
typedefs,
> > yet, although me may get a similar effect (if not the same type) with
> e.g.:
> >
> > template
> > struct shared_ptr : smart_p
From: "Terje Slettebø" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> >
> > Please don't take this to mean I'm against a
> > policy-based smart pointer; quite the opposite. I've
> > said all along it would be great to have one in boost.
> > I've even wished I had an appropriat
Terje Slettebø <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>>From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> Please don't take this to mean I'm against a
>> policy-based smart pointer; quite the opposite. I've
>> said all along it would be great to have one in boost.
>> I've even wished I had an appropriate occ
>From: "David Abrahams" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>
> Please don't take this to mean I'm against a
> policy-based smart pointer; quite the opposite. I've
> said all along it would be great to have one in boost.
> I've even wished I had an appropriate occasionally.
>
> I just don't want to trivialize wha
