From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-13 11:14:14
At 12:28 AM 1/12/2002, David Abrahams wrote:
>Do we need a storage-owning random-access iterator? I don't, today.
>probably does: it provides value beyond separated iterators and storage
>ownership. Does it have to be in boost? Probably not.
That's an important point.
What I'm advocating is that the smart pointer framework class be quite
general, to the point of supporting policy implementations that we can't
see much use for, and even some that we think are usually ill-advised.
Boost might well not provide policy implementations that we see as
ill-advised or not terribly useful.
The C++ Standard Library certainly should not provide policy
implementations that the LWG sees as ill-advised or not terribly useful.
But because the generality is present in the framework, programmers can
always supply their own policies if desired.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk