Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-03 07:29:49

From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
> > There is a break-even point past which a custom smart pointer
> by
> > defining the appropriate policies becomes harder to write, more error
> prone,
> > less readable and less efficient compared to simply implementing the
> > from scratch. And coming up with a good policy-based design (one with a
> > reasonable break-even point) is difficult.
> I think we learned some things from the iterator adaptor library, which
> AFAICT has been a success. I'm not sure we can apply all of those lessons,
> but it may yet be possible. The first thing missing is a Pointer Concept
> family definition along the lines of the Iterator Concept family.

Leading C++ experts can't agree on a common informal definition of the term
"smart pointer" (the best they can think of is "anything that redefines *
and ->") and you think that we can devise a Pointer Concept? ;-)

Although my point was more along the lines that even given a policy-based
smart pointer, your particular case would most probably still call for an
old school, hand written implementation.

Peter Dimov
Multi Media Ltd.

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