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

From: Phil Nash (phil.nash.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-19 08:50:48

[Peter Dimov]
> 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?

See my earlier posting relating to my smart_resource proposal. From Andrei's
reply it sounds like Loki::SmartPtr _could_ meet most of not all
requirements for smart_resource, but I think there is value in keeping such
a concept seperate. Of course, if I rephrase that "but I _believe_ there is
value..." then we come back to designing to beliefs.

Certainly I am in violent agreement that smart_resource like capabilities
should be made available somewhere (so SmartPtr capabilities applied to non
pointers). I am even willing to look again at the code I started last year
to demonstrate the utility of such a class (or family of classes) as
seperate from smart pointers. Then we may be better positioned to decide if
this can be usuably catered for by SmartPtr - and if so whether SmartPtr
_becomes_ smart_resource, for which managing pointers is only a subset of
functionality.

Regards,

[)o
IhIL..