[boost] Re: CopyPtr and ClonePtr

From: Kevin Atkinson (kevinatk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-03-06 07:10:47

Dave Abrahams wrote:
> 
> on 3/6/00 6:41 AM, Kevin Atkinson at kevinatk_at_[hidden] wrote:

> > No that's ok.  I took GREAT pain to make sure that the code in
> > copy_ptr.hh never requires the complete definition of Bar1.  The worst
> > thing that will happen is undefined references which the explicit
> > installation takes care of.  For compilers with export support that may
> > not even be needed as copy_ptr-t.hh could be copy_ptr.cc but sense I
> > don't have access to such a compiler I do not know for sure.  I know my
> > code works with modern versions of gcc and egcs which is a pretty good,
> > except for the stdlib, as far as standard compliance goes.
> >
> > Sorry If i sound implatent I just get annoyed when people can't read my
> > mind. :)
> 
> Wow, you learn something new every day. I never thought of doing this... but
> of course it makes sense that the compiler doesn't require the definition of
> a template function to be visible just so it can compile a use of that
> function.

Sorry for the misunderstanding I thought you understood this and where
having problems with the undefined references.

> That's pretty cool. In fact, I'll go out on a limb and say that
> it's way cool.

Great.  How about looking at my ClonePtr which does the same thing but
works when the template type is an Abstract Base Class.

> >> Sorry, I _really_ must be missing something. How have you demonstrated the
> >> need for non-owning CopyPtr above?
> >
> > What do you mean my non-owning.  The point of the CopyPtr that it ALWAYS
> > owns its object.  The own flag is for the very special case when it
> > doesn't and I don't even think I use it. It should be removed before
> > includes in boost as it just confuses things.
> 
> That, I think, is exactly what my point was ;)

Good I will remove it and post a new copy in a day or so...
-- 
Kevin Atkinson
kevinatk_at_[hidden]
http://metalab.unc.edu/kevina/