Re: [boost] [review] Exception

From: brass goowy (brass_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-18 18:13:28

Emil Dotchevski wrote:
>> 2. shared_ptr<> may be replaced by intrusive_ptr<> or home made equivalent.
>> This (a) reduces dependency on other Boost part (shared_ptr does depend on
>> quite few other libs) and (b) the atomic locking used by shared_ptr would be
>> eliminated. This would help a little bit on multiprocessor systems - lock
>> may be hundredths of cycles and during the time access to the memory bus is
>> disabled.
>(a) is a valid concern, OTOH shared_ptr is such a low level component
>of Boost that -- as careful as I am in avoiding physical coupling -- I
>don't consider it a real dependency; rather, it's a tool for avoiding
>dependencies.

Any reason for not using intrusive_ptr?   Shared_ptr may be a low level
part of Boost, but I'm not sure it should be lower level than this library.
A library like this is overdue in my opinion. 

Brian Wood
Ebenezer Enterprises
www.webebenezer.net