Re: [boost] Array support [was SmartPtr (Loki) - auto_ptr/move c'tor issue]

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-03 16:32:07

At 02:57 PM 2/3/2003, David Abrahams wrote:

 >Beman Dawes <bdawes_at_[hidden]> writes:
 >
 >> At 09:46 PM 2/2/2003, Howard Hinnant wrote:
 >>
 >> To me, a major benefit of a policy based design is to
 >> be able to accommodate a wide range of features,
 >> including those which find only limited use.
 >>
 >> If a policy based smart pointer can't accommodate a
 >> wide range of features, I start to wonder if the design
 >> itself is inflexible and flawed. That's why I worry a
 >> lot about whether a given PBSP design can handle
 >> apparently marginal uses.
 >
 >There's no reason we have to be restricted to a single idiom AFAICT.
 >The GenVoca-style design we're using for the new iterator_adaptors is
 >great for adding new interface in the most-derived class.  A blend of
 >techniques is often more effective than trying to cram everything into
 >a single approach.  If you want a smart_ptr with implicit conversion,
 >one way might be:
 >
 >  template <class T>
 >  struct legacy_ptr
 >    : smart_ptr<blah, blah, blah...>
 >  {
 >
 >    legacy_ptr(T* p) : smart_ptr<blah...>(p) {}
 >    T* operator()() const { return this->get(); }
 >  };

Yes, that's a good point for add-on features that can be implemented on top 
of smart_ptr.

--Beman