Boost logo

Boost :

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


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk