From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-10 10:23:58
From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]>
> I don't think the effect is that disastruous, and the idea of not fully
> support arrays did have a justification behind it, so I guess arbitrary is
> undeserved. But I won't go on on wrestling about that.
I won't question your decision to not support the *_array versions by
default since I mostly agree with it.
But don't you think that the smart_ptr power user should be able to make an
 supporting pointer using a policy? (This is a specific instance of a
general problem: adding features to smart_ptr using a policy.)
-- 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