From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-19 19:25:17
"Dietmar Kuehl" <dietmar_kuehl_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> I entirely agree that a policy-based smart pointer is much more flexible
> and necessary, be it to cope with special situations internal to
> components or even in special situations in interfaces (if the need for
> difference outweight the compatibility issue) or to define the
> "standard" smart pointer. It can deal with situations where the
> "standard" smart pointer is simply inappropriate. But it is unsuitable
> to be used in interfaces directly because it is likely to cause
> unnecessary incompatibilities.
So, if I understand you correctly, are you saying that you think
Loki::SmartPtr might be a good addition to boost, but as an
implementation detail of a more rigid smart pointer interface,
rather than exposing all the policies directly?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk