Re: [boost] shared_ptr changes

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-24 10:23:05

From: "Darin Adler" <darin_at_[hidden]>
> One possibility is to overload for the counted_base case and make it an
> error to construct a shared_ptr from one of these objects. You could
> explicitly construct an intrusive_ptr if you were doing it intentionally.

You know how users react to this, don't you. ;-) If it's smart enough to
give an error, why isn't it smart enough to do the right thing? What is
gained by the error?