Re: [boost] Re: boost::weak_ptr suggestions

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-08 19:54:21

At 08:04 AM 4/7/2002, Peter Dimov wrote:

 >
 >I'm not convinced that even leaving get() in is a good idea. We 
should
 >probably rename it to unsafe_get() since no matter how red, bold, and 

 >large we make the warning in the documentation, people will ignore 
it.

While the standard was being developed, Nathan Myers wanted get() to be 
renamed leak().

 >> Well, I don't know - presumably a more parameterized smart pointer
 >> would (at least with some parameter combinations) duplicate the
 >> functionality of shared_ptr, which would then make shared_ptr
 >> redundant.
 >
 >That was the plan.
 >
 >The main problem with policy-based pointer proposals so far is that
 >nobody actually sat down and did the work. The only serious proposal
 >is Andrei's Loki::SmartPtr, which doesn't support (out of the box)
 >neither the array versions nor the current shared_ptr, and nobody has
 >expressed willingness to write the necessary paperwork (formal spec,
 >tests, docs, that sort of thing.)
 >
 >Saying "why don't we make a policy-based smart pointer" on the list 
is
 >not enough (this is not aimed at you personally, merely a general
 >comment.)

Very true. Smart pointers have proven very, very, hard to get right. We 
owe a vote of thanks to Peter, Greg and the others who have been 
willing to put in the long term effort.

--Beman