From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-07-13 11:43:46
At 10:37 AM 7/13/2001, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> They are currently unspecified. At least for now, that's probably
>> best. See below.
>IOW, a linked-list implementation is conforming. This is good. :-)
Complexity requirements can help ensure that application programs ported to
other library implementations still perform reasonably.
But there can be a real downside. They discourage implementors from
innovating. They are hard to specify correctly. They effectively add to
the cost of standardization. So they should only be used where there is a
major advantage to doing so.
>> >An interesting related question is "why does shared_ptr have
>> As an aid to writing test cases and debugging displays. One of the
>> progenitors had use_count(), and it was useful in tracking down bugs in
>> complex project that turned out to have cyclic-dependencies.
>This should probably be documented (along with the decision to not
>Why is this important? Because some nice interface additions to
>(my shared_ptr_id proposal, for instance) would be inappropriate under a
>Perhaps this deserves a new FAQ entry:
>Q: Why doesn't shared_ptr provide (your pet feature here)?
>A: Because (your pet feature here) would mandate a reference counted
>implementation. This is not the intent.
Added. Thanks! And thanks to Christian for posing the questions in the
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk