Re: [boost] Re: RFC: Inheritance alternatives for policy-based smart_ptr

From: Phil Nash (phil.nash.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-30 19:27:25

>
> "Phil Nash" <phil.nash.lists_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:007901c1efe5$23664a20$10b387d9_at_TimeMachine...
>
> Since you do not provide details of your solution, I can't comment it.

Looks like David B has beaten me to an example - or at least a start of one.
I may have some more input on that soon (I'm wondering if I have solved the
template typedef problem - at least in part).

> Anyway be aware that you should have a good reason to prefer any complex
> solution to elegant MI.

(1) We started out with that "good reason" - to allow for compilers that
don't do EBO (or don't do a good job of it - David's analysis seems to
suggest there are middling degrees).
(2) I argued that, with the complexity encapsulated up in the policy_mixer
we don't introduce too much more into the design
(3) we may introduce some techniques to *reduce* complexity. Maybe I should
get my justification sorted out before I make comments like that, but I
thought it was worth mentioning here anyway...

Regards,

[)o
IhIL..