Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-02 07:47:46


From: "Howard Hinnant" <hinnant_at_[hidden]>
>
> I can't speak for the rest of the people that were in the room that
> day. But the opinion I voiced to others in that room is that we should
> proceed with caution. I did not (and do not) want to standardize the
> wrong smart pointers, and I remain unconvinced that all of the smart
> pointer issues are sufficiently ironed out. That effectively had me
> saying: No, I don't want to standardize scoped_ptr and shared_ptr. It
> is not because I think these classes aren't worth standardizing. It is
> because I don't think the subject is yet mature enough. For one thing,
> I think move semantics (if it comes to be) could have an impact on
> smart pointer design. Template typedefs are another possibly
> significant influence. And (templated) opaque typedefs yet a third
> potentially influential factor. [...]

You are right that the subject is not mature enough... but not for the
reasons you mentioned (IMO). Move semantics do not affect shared_ptr as it's
CopyConstructible; auto_ptr and move_ptr are not. I don't see how template
typedefs can affect shared_ptr, either. You may be able to arrive at
shared_ptr<T> via a class template or via a template typedef, but once you
are there, you need to specify semantics either way, so what's the
difference?


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk