AW: [boost] Re: [boost] Re: [boost] Curacao: reaction to smart pointer proposal

From: Detlef Höffner (Detlef.Hoeffner_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-01 04:24:23

To be precise I was speaking about shared_ptr's not any kind of
smart pointer (although I have written smart pointer).
The issues do not arise with scoped_ptr or auto_ptr
since responsibility in both cases one smart pointer is responsible
ans they live in a very local scope anyway.

That means that for auto_ptr and scoped_ptr the issues do not arise
in the same way. The problems occur when responsibility is shared!

Regards

Detlef

-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: boost-admin_at_[hidden] [mailto:boost-admin_at_[hidden]]Im
Auftrag von Gennadiy Rozental
Gesendet: Mittwoch, 1. Mai 2002 08:43
An: boost_at_[hidden]
Betreff: Re: [boost] Re: [boost] Re: [boost] Curacao: reaction to smart
pointer proposal

"Detlef Hoffner" <Detlef.Hoeffner_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:DPEAKMJIHINMMKDMMDODOEJECAAA.Detlef.Hoeffner_at_gmx.de...

[...]

> Only both a) policy based smart pointers together with
> b) one standard way to define and use a default smart pointer
> for a specific type will be an acceptable solution.
>
> If this is achieved through typedefs and a naming conventions,
> through type traits or through a template specialization is another
> question. Important is that there is a standard way to provide a
> default smart pointer for a type.
>
> Regards
>
> Detlef

I do not belive that there is default smart ptr for given type. For a given
type T what would you consider a default smart pointer: shared_ptr,
scoped_ptr, auto_ptr?

Gennadiy.

_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost