From: Phil Nash (phil.nash.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-29 20:36:54
> Let me tell you everything that happened, and that might shed some light
> how Loki::SmartPtr came about, what my view onm the issue is, and what I
> believe can be done henceforth.
The second decision was to have the code fully support
> non-pointer resources, and leave the debate about naming for later. That
> "later" became "now".
> Therefore, my belief is that smart pointers can be quite naturally used as
> smart resources, barring a couple of design awkwardnesses on my part.
> Whether this is, or it isn't, the way to go, remains to be seen.
Ah, that background does help, thanks Andrei. However, while it helps me to
see that you have not been uncharacteristically unattentive to the issue, I
still am not comfortable with your statement that "smart pointers can be
quite naturally used as smart resources". Maybe it is just me (although I
know I not entirely alone here), but I think this more than just a name
issue. It is certainly more than just answering the question "can the
Loki::SmartPtr design act as a smart resource out of the box" - which
clearly it can - and by obviously well thought out design.
My greatest concerns I have enumerated now in my reply to Gennadiy, so I
will not repeat them here. I hope that you will respond there, as your
comment that '"later" became "now"' suggests to me that you do want to
resolve this matter one way or another (as do I).
Thanks for taking the time to give a detailed response here.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk