From: Beman Dawes (beman_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-03-05 09:12:18
At 11:52 AM 3/3/00 -0500, Borgerding, Mark A. wrote:
>I put an updated linked_ptr.hpp in the vault under smart_pointers.
> added linked_array
> put everything under the boost namespace.
>What position should these classes take in the library?
>Greg and Beman, I'm most interested in your opinions on this. If
>decided that linked_ptr should become shared_ptr, I'd like to put
>copyrights and histories of both files together, since linked_ptr
>is borrowed heavily from shared_ptr.
There is a C++ Standard Committee meeting coming up in Tokyo April
16-21. Greg Covin, Dietmar, Nico, and probably several other boost
members will be there. I plan to get the boost people together and
discuss smart pointers issues.
To point isn't to decide anything - we try to make that process open
to all boost members via this mailing list - but a face-to-face
discussion can focus attention. Hopefully the day when we can have
online meetings isn't far off.
One of the ideas I want to explore is that perhaps boost should have
a two-tier smart pointer library. For casual users, a preferred
smart point. For users wishing to move to the next level, a wider
range of choices with various trade offs.
Smart pointers discussions are likely to continue for years. At
least some of the boost smart pointer classes are bound to be
proposed for the next C++ standard (although it is impossible to
predict how such a proposal will be received.)
It would be very helpful if someone would volunteer to start building
a smart pointers issues-list to document current issues and to
document the rationale for any decisions made. Please contact me if
you are interested.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk