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

From: Miki Jovanovic (miki_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-03-06 15:03:35

"gavin collings" <gcolling-_at_[hidden]> wrote: 
> Since the interfaces will be as identical as possible, naming by
> implementation probably makes more sense.  Change shared_ptr to
> counted_ptr?

Well, if we can get interfaces to match, then we could do something
like:

#if defined( _LINKED_IMPL_ )
  template<class T> shared_ptr : public linked_ptr<T> {};
#elif defined ( _COUNTED_IMPL_ )
  template<class T> shared_ptr : public counted_ptr<T> {};
#else
  // default implementation; something we chose...
  ...
#endif

This way, with a simple configuration define, you can change your smart
pointer implementation globally.

Cheers,

Miki.