[boost] Re: Re: Re: Intrusive smart pointer

From: Andrei Alexandrescu (andrewalex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-18 14:03:50

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:004901c1e6fd$47750410$1d00a8c0_at_pdimov2...
> Yes, a policy-based design is, IMO, the right approach. I personally
> consider Loki::SmartPtr a bit overdesigned (Storage + Ownership should be
> rolled into one policy) but it works, i.e. covers the above feature space
> AFAIK.

One man constant is another man's variable :o). Some people believe SmartPtr
is underdesigned.

Rolling Storage and Ownership together is feasible and valid, however there
might be a little potential duplication.

Andrei