[boost] Re: weak pointers and cycles

From: Greg Colvin (gcolvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 1999-12-01 11:31:11

From: Andy Glew <glew_at_[hidden]>

> When I see a relatively small set of semantics, but a large set of possible
> implementations, each with differing advantages, my reaction is to 
> parameterize:
> 
>     template<class T, class Implementation=shared_ptr_implementation>
>     class shared_ptr : shared_ptr_implementation<T> {
>         ...
>     }

I've been backing into this one for years.  One of my committee
proposals had counted_ptr parameterized on an allocator, an idea
whose time may have come.

However, cyclic_ptr, shared_ptr, and weak_ptr do not have the
same semantics.