[boost] Re: [boost] Re: [boost] Re: [boost] Curaçao: reaction to smart pointer

From: Phil Nash (phil.nash.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-30 20:41:33

From: "Howard Hinnant" <hinnant_at_[hidden]>

> 3.  Should we be looking at smart object holders, and pointers are just
> a special case?  Or would this turn into a kitchen sink class with way
> too big of an interface?  Thinking down this path feeds into Dave's
> recent post about policy being dependent upon value_type.  For example
> if the value_type is a pointer, then you do smart pointer things.  If
> the value_type is an array, then you do smart pointer to array things.
> If the value_type is a FILE* you do file things.  If the value_type is a
> mutex, you do mutex things. etc.  Not saying this is how things should
> be.  Just busy opening cans of worms. ;-)

How curious. I just posted my final case against the "kitchen sink" class by
illustrating the use of a wrapped pointer, FILE* and a mutex (well almost -
it was a file handle, to get away from confusion with pointers).
I'm not sure if you are sort-of supporting my case or not, but I'm glad that
at least someone else is concerned about it.
I think there are too many problems with the traits approach (I'm in
agreement with Andrei in that one, I think) - (and it doesn't really address
my other concerns, which I won't bring up again here).

Regards,

[)o
IhIL..