From: Gavin Collings (gcollings_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-03-21 15:15:23
"borgerding, mark a." <marka-_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> If template friends are allowed, then the linked_ptr_base inheritance
> also be replaced by containment.
My thought is that private inheritance maps quite naturally to the
current implementation; there is a private is-a relationship - the
linked list itself may be composed of types of different linked_ptr but
they are easily referenced polymorphically as linked_ptr_base.
I was considering making it protected inheritance as some of the
functions in linked_ptr_base could conceivably be useful to further
derived classes (as could the is-a relationship). Do you have any
strong feelings on that?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk