From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-04 17:05:06
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]>
> My second point was that a design with orthogonal policies is simplest and
> should be strived for. If SmartPtr needs interacting policies, there has
> be a strong practical argument in favor of that. Until now, the current
> design of SmartPtr has proven considerably flexible - there's no smart
> pointer implementation that me or other users needed that couldn't be
> implemented within the existing framework.
The use of orthogonal policies certainly has a conceptual cleanliness which
I favor. On the other hand, breaking things up into tiny pieces also gives
users more details to worry about, so it isn't clear to me which approach is
actually simplest for users.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk