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

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-19 06:45:38

From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]>
> "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.

Some people will believe anything. ;-)

Seriously, we shouldn't design to beliefs. You must have acquired some
experience with SmartPtr by now that answers the question. IOW does anybody
use a pointer type different from value_type*? And if so, is "SmartPtr" the
appropriate name of the class?