RE: [boost] function review

From: Aleksey Gurtovoy (alexy_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-06-14 08:45:41

 Peter Dimov wrote:
> OTOH I guess that if (when) shared_ptr goes into std:: it 
> probably would end up in <smart_ptr>, so I may well start 
> getting used to it.

I think <memory> has better chances :). 

Speaking seriously, I would _love_ to see 'boost/smart_ptr.hpp' header
splitted into separate files, one for each of the pointer types we have,
e.g. "boost/memory/scoped_ptr.hpp", "boost/memory/shared_ptr.hpp" etc. The
main motivation is breaking unnecessary dependencies. For instance, here at
work we use 'scoped_ptr' much more often than anything else, and recompiling
half of the project after the recent bug fix in 'shared_ptr' wasn't a very
pleasant experience.

Aleksey