From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-19 06:45:38
From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]>
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > Yes, a policy-based design is, IMO, the right approach. I personally
> > consider Loki::SmartPtr a bit overdesigned (Storage + Ownership should
> > rolled into one policy) but it works, i.e. covers the above feature
> > AFAIK.
> One man constant is another man's variable :o). Some people believe
> is underdesigned.
Some people will believe anything. ;-)
Seriously, we shouldn't design to beliefs. You must have acquired some
experience with SmartPtr by now that answers the question. IOW does anybody
use a pointer type different from value_type*? And if so, is "SmartPtr" the
appropriate name of the class?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk