From: Kevlin Henney (kevlin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-03-06 13:38:37
In message <007801bf8793$5f44f440$37781990_at_[hidden]>, Greg Colvin
>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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk