Boost logo

Boost :

From: Andrei Alexandrescu (andrewalex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-19 19:46:41

"Fernando Cacciola" <fcacciola_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> We actually have just one disagreement: I think that having a bounded set
> single-parameter template classes with fixed template-ids is the right
> choice as a general purpose smart pointer facility because it sets a
> *uniform* idiom for dealing with the general problem of keeping objects
> alive as needed.
> All my arguments are based on this statement. Were this be wrong, then
> you would be entirely right.

Sounds cool. As far as I'm concerned, we ended up in agreement.

Alas, the real world kicks in. Unfortunately, there is just a ton of
syntactic scaffolding that should be built right into the smart pointer, and
that will end up being duplicated if distinct classes are to be written.

I guess the best common denominator, and one that will make both of us
entirely happy, is typedef templates.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at