Boost logo

Boost :

From: Daryle Walker (darylew_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-01-09 14:52:31

on 1/8/01 5:54 PM, Howard Hinnant at hinnant_at_[hidden] wrote:

[SNIP my inappropriate complaints]
> I think you've misunderstood my intent. I originally posted this thread
> to comp.lang.c++ with the statement:


>> I'm thinking along the lines of this being part of the next C++
>> standard. But it needs lots more field testing and thought than I can
>> give it alone.
> I'm happy to discuss it here on boost as well (as William suggested by
> forwarding my post). But I'm still thinking of this as a proposed
> addition to the standard. I'm not concerned about the rules that
> disallow clients from adding stuff to namespace std. Nor am I concerned
> about non-compliant compilers. I realize that this only partially fits
> into the boost "topic". And if boosters think this is not appropriate
> for boost, I fully understand.


> However I think William's motivation for bringing this to boost was to
> see if people thought that the technique might have value to boost's
> existing smart pointers. And that aspect seems fully on topic.

I guess so. I don't follow the smart pointer stuff that much. I guess
array support would help, but the manner of doing it still seems hackish.
(Changing semantics by using a incomplete variant of a type you would
normally use with the class.)

Daryle Walker
Mac, Internet, and Video Game Junkie
darylew AT mac DOT com

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at