Boost logo

Boost :

From: John Max Skaller (skaller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-08-16 20:13:20

"David A. Greene" wrote:
> Ross Smith wrote:
> > revisiting before any attempt to standardise it. More specifically, have
> > a look at the policy-based smart pointers Andrei Alexandrescu describes
> > in _Modern C++ Design_. After you've explored the possibilities of
> That's a very good point. However, I'm curious as to when we simply
> have to put our foot down and say, "it's good enough." Surely people
> had lots of ideas to improve the STL when it was standardized. It's
> pretty clear it went in as a work-in-progress (hindsight being 20/20
> and all).

        Some history. originally, Australia and the UK made
the lack of library components which made exception safe programming
possible in C++ a show stopper
        Two components were deemed enough to remove this objection,
something to hold pointers on the stack and delete the object by
of the destructor (auto-ptr) and something to do ref counting

        The committee was completely unable to reach consensus
on the smart ptr, and attempts were made to munge auto-ptr to
serve both needs. In the light of the committees inablilty to actually
meet the requirements, both nations withdrew the show stopper status:
you can force a horse to water, but you can't make it design a sane
smart ptr component -- or choose one of Greg Colvin's numerous excellent

        So the demand for smart_ptr goes way back to
National Body requirements, and it would be really good to
finally see that requirement met. Lets hope enough people have
changed that agreement can be reached this time on _some_
kind of reasonable design.

John (Max) Skaller, mailto:skaller_at_[hidden] 
10/1 Toxteth Rd Glebe NSW 2037 Australia voice: 61-2-9660-0850
New generation programming language Felix
Literate Programming tool Interscript

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