From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-19 11:28:37
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> From: "Dietmar Kuehl" <dietmar_kuehl_at_[hidden]>
> > OK, before you start thinking I have gone entirely stupid (which you
> > are, of course, free to think anyway), I want to clarify a little bit:
> > The problem with policy-based designs is that similar entities with a
> > similar intention become incompatible.
> You are right. In particular, the problem is that when library A uses
> smart_ptr<T, X> and library B uses smart_ptr<T, Y>, the authors of X and Y
> must know about each other in order to provide a conversion.
> shared_ptr<T>'s custom deallocator support deliberately doesn't use
> template parameter to avoid this possibility.
You keep repeating this argument, but I still do not see why is it
1. Could you provide reallife example shouing that this is an issue.
2. Is this only smart_ptr related? What about iterator_adaptors for example?
3. Could you sketch you solution with current smart_ptr?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk