[boost] Re: policy-based smart pointers are EVIL!

From: Andrei Alexandrescu (andrewalex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-19 10:08:42

<DKl_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:904AA220ACB4D211A10600104B3E85C92A82CA_at_MAIL...
> 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,
throughout.

> I just want to point out that a policy-based smart
> pointer is not a solution to all smart pointer related problems.
Neither
> are the current smart pointers: There is definitely something needed
in
> 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
yesterday.

> 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
sense
>   to use opaque types as handles...

Both options are supported by Loki::SmartPtr.

Andrei