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 acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk