From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-28 20:22:19
"Phil Nash" <phil.nash.lists_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Hi Dave (and co), sorry to come to this late - hope you're still reading
> thread :-)
You bet. I'm working on smart_ptr when I have time and motivation. ;)
And I'm learning as I go, so that slows me down a bit as well.
> Could the decision as to whether we use a linear inheritance hierarchy
> or MI be deferred to yet another policy? (YAP?).
Heh, heh. Sure it could. But I think that would defeat the purpose of
MI in the first place. I myself am not intimidated by specifying five or
policies for a type, since I usually just do it once or twice, and use a
everywhere else. In fact, I consider the full type spelled out, policies
all, as an in-code documentation of what I'm doing.
> By inheriting smart_ptr immediately from, say, policy_mixer (for want of
> a better thought out name), we leave it to policy mixer how to, well, mix
> the policies. [...]
I think if you're going to defer the policies to a mixer, you may as well go
the full policy chaining route, IMO. I think the MI approach allows a
statement of the policies chosen (and I think it's an elegant design, to
Once you throw in a policy mixer, you're abandoning the implementation
elegance of the MI approach, and have the verbosity of the chained policy
approach, so why not just go with that?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk