From: Dave Abrahams (abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-03-06 05:50:45
on 3/6/00 4:41 AM, Moore, Paul at Paul.Moore_at_[hidden] wrote:
> The current example is smart pointers. I can see that there are issues, but
> for the life of me I can't understand the current thread(s). And to my mind,
> that implies that the issues are not in the category of "basic use" (or I'm
> being dumb :-)
You may be just focusing on things which are of concern to you. To some
people, the question of which shared_ptr implementation is more efficient is
of critical importance, and I think rightly so. The issue of how to
"release" ownership of an object once it has arrived in a standard container
of smart pointers is probably also important [maybe some of the other
discussion has been less relevant, but I've just ignored it ;) ]
> Am I not right in thinking that the final state of auto_ptr<> was a result
> of trying to be all things to all men? Are we risking the same fate?
Not exactly. It was more due to the fact that all men would think that it is
all things, when in fact it is not. ;)
> PS I'd like to see more work on adding new facilities, rather than endlessly
> refining existing ones - I like the recently posted interval arithmetic and
> range set classes. More of the same, please!
Yes, there's lots missing. Please feel free to propose things which you
would like to see!
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk