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

From: Dave Harris (brangdon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-19 07:38:20

In-Reply-To: <00cd01c1e794$cd5ced80$1d00a8c0_at_pdimov2>
On Fri, 19 Apr 2002 14:24:41 +0300 Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden]) wrote:
> * Do we have a consensus that boost needs an intrusive_ptr that is not
> policy based? (IOW is a single variation better than none?)

Aye.

> * How do we decide on the variation? (FWIW the intrusive pointer that I 
> use is add_ref/release, no base class requirement, initial value zero,
> self-deleting. I can provide a rationale.)

My local intrusive pointer is almost exactly the same. I suspect there is 
a lot of consensus about the fundamentals.

I use AddRef/Release instead of add_ref/release. My names are compatible 
with Microsoft's OLE, a parochial concern which boost probably does not 
share. I'd gladly change them. If we use non-member functions, adapter 
functions like:

    inline void add_ref( MyIntrusiveBaseClass *p ) {
        p->AddRef();
    }

may help, too. I doubt there will be any problem.

-- Dave Harris