From: Andrei Alexandrescu (andrewalex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-19 10:08:42
<DKl_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> brangdon_at_[hidden] wrote:
> Also note, that I don't have any system for this stuff ready or
> something like this.
Ah :o). I couldn't see with what you compare Loki::SmartPtr,
> I just want to point out that a policy-based smart
> pointer is not a solution to all smart pointer related problems.
> are the current smart pointers: There is definitely something needed
> this area which is, as far as I can see, not yet addressed.
To me, a policy-based pointer is clearly the way to go. I am sure
there are better designs than Loki::SmartPtr. What I can tell is that
I have had salient results with policy-based smart pointers, many
other people reported the same, and nobody complained... before
> BTW: Since thie pImpl is not supposed to leak to the outside anyway,
> a specific type including a specifically configured policy-based
> smart pointer can be used. On the other hand, sometimes it makes
> to use opaque types as handles...
Both options are supported by Loki::SmartPtr.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk