[boost] Re: Re: Re: move_ptr

From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-21 11:21:39

"Daniel Wallin" <dalwan01_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:400EA228.4000202_at_student.umu.se...
> Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> > "Daniel Wallin" <dalwan01_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:400E9464.1040608_at_student.umu.se...
> >
> >>Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Also, in general, it is far easier to start with less and add more
> >
> > later
> >
> >>than to throw everything in from the start and remove later.
> >>
> >
> >
> > I don't think so. I've already written the policy based version,
with
> > two policies -- no_storage and auto_storage; I'm just working on
one
> > or two more. It should be quite simple to get rid of it later.
>
> That's not the point. Removing things will break client code, adding
> things won't. Nobody is arguing that this is hard to implement, and
even
> if it was, that shouldn't dictate design choices.
>

First, I'm just proposing the policy parameter so we will have a
number of options to choose from. Right now, there isn't any client
code to break.

Second, it shouldn't break any code, if people agree with you and
don't want custom deleters:

    template< typename T,
                    template<typename> class Deletion = no_storage >
    class move_ptr;

(I've made the policy into a template template parameter, for
convenience.)

People who agree with you will just use plain move_ptr<T>, so their
code won't be affected. People who like and use custom deleters will
argue against the removal of the policy parameter. But debate is good,
isn't it?

Jonathan