From: Phil Nash (phil.nash.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-30 20:41:33
From: "Howard Hinnant" <hinnant_at_[hidden]>
> 3. Should we be looking at smart object holders, and pointers are just
> a special case? Or would this turn into a kitchen sink class with way
> too big of an interface? Thinking down this path feeds into Dave's
> recent post about policy being dependent upon value_type. For example
> if the value_type is a pointer, then you do smart pointer things. If
> the value_type is an array, then you do smart pointer to array things.
> If the value_type is a FILE* you do file things. If the value_type is a
> mutex, you do mutex things. etc. Not saying this is how things should
> be. Just busy opening cans of worms. ;-)
How curious. I just posted my final case against the "kitchen sink" class by
illustrating the use of a wrapped pointer, FILE* and a mutex (well almost -
it was a file handle, to get away from confusion with pointers).
I'm not sure if you are sort-of supporting my case or not, but I'm glad that
at least someone else is concerned about it.
I think there are too many problems with the traits approach (I'm in
agreement with Andrei in that one, I think) - (and it doesn't really address
my other concerns, which I won't bring up again here).
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