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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk