[boost] Re: Boost smart pointers [was llinked_ptr in the vault]

From: Kevlin Henney (kevlin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-03-06 13:38:37

In message <007801bf8793$5f44f440$37781990_at_[hidden]>, Greg Colvin
<gcolvin_at_[hidden]> writes
[...]
>I was hopeful of reconciling the two classes, but I think we have seen
>that with a decent allocator the counted implementation retains some
>performance edge for it's intended use.  But linked_ptr has it's own
>advantages, so it should be retained as well.  I do want to see the
>interfaces made as identical as possible.

Agreed on all points. Only one minor issue: naming. One is named in
terms of its intent (shared_ptr) which could be said to apply to both
types, and the other is named in terms of its implementation structure
(linked_ptr). Thoughts and preferences?
____________________________________________________________

  Kevlin Henney                 Without art we are nothing
  kevlin_at_[hidden]                but monkeys with car keys
  kevlin_at_[hidden]
____________________________________________________________