From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-30 14:41:45
At 02:08 PM 4/30/2002, al wrote:
>At 12:05 PM 4/30/2002 -0500, boost-request_at_[hidden] wrote:
>>I skimmed MC++D quickly, but couldn't find your rationale for choice of
>>defaults. I'm assuming it was something like "the safest, most commonly
>>needed for a wide range of general uses."
>>Instead, defaults would have to be chosen as "the most widely useful for
>>interfacing between libraries."
>>Now it may be that these two criteria result in the same set of
>>defaults. But you need to review your choice of defaults to make sure
>>is the case.
>IMO, providing defaults for a policy based classes like smart ptr is not
>such a wise move. Template typedefs would be better.
I assume you mean typedef templates.
But they aren't a possibility for Boost, which must work with the current
C++ language, and they aren't a possibility for the Standard Library
Technical Report, for the same reason.
Thus all the practical proposals from Andrei and others use only langauge
features found in today's C++.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk