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

From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-19 11:25:20

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:015b01c1e797$ba86d100$1d00a8c0_at_pdimov2...
> From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]>
> > "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:004901c1e6fd$47750410$1d00a8c0_at_pdimov2...
> > > Yes, a policy-based design is, IMO, the right approach. I personally
> > > consider Loki::SmartPtr a bit overdesigned (Storage + Ownership should
> be
> > > rolled into one policy) but it works, i.e. covers the above feature
> space
> > > AFAIK.
> >
> > One man constant is another man's variable :o). Some people believe
> SmartPtr
> > is underdesigned.
>
> Some people will believe anything. ;-)
>
> 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?
>

ResourceManager probably would be more clear. But smart_ptr is established
idom so I do not see harm in using this name.

Gennadiy.