From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-10-18 10:43:34
From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> I agree with the O.P. that we should make the fix. I think that path is
> superior to the one which restricts the legal usage of shared_ptr. I also
> think that we should look anew at our implementation: is the
> two-pointer-separate-count design causing so much complication that the
> correctness of the implementation is hard to manage? It seems to me that
> implementation of shared_ptr is much more complicated than it should need
I agree that the implementation is more complicated than necessary, but I
don't think that this is caused by the separate count design.
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk