Re: [boost] intrusive pointer, rationale for preferring shared_ptr instead.

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-04-11 05:37:31

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:

> And, if you pay attention:
>
>>> "As a general rule, if it isn't obvious whether intrusive_ptr better
>>> fits your needs than shared_ptr, try a shared_ptr-based design
>>> first."
>
> you'll see that the recommendation is for the cases where it isn't obvious 
> whether intrusive_ptr is a better choice.

Adding all of the other text your posting to the docs as rationale for
the recommendation might be a slick move at this point.

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
www.boost-consulting.com