From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-01 05:02:47
From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]>
> "Greg Colvin" <greg_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > An interesting theory. Of course persons comfortable framework
> > can be another persons Procrustean bed. ;->
> Alrighty, watch your height folks :o).
> Seriously now, I think there's enough evidence to back up the assertion
> useful generalizations are possible at least for smart pointers. So I
> understand why we're having this discussion on "doesn't follow" and
> "interesting theory" etc.
I believe that you missed my point.
I am not trying to claim that useful generalizations are impossible. What I
am trying to say is that "users' needs are so varied" doesn't imply "we need
a standard smart pointer." In fact the opposite would be true.
In order to justify the need for a _standard_ (emphasis on standard) smart
pointer, there must be agreement that users' needs, albeit varied, have so
much in common that a standard class, inrastructure, or framework can help.
That agreed upon, the next step is to claim that a single class template
(shared_ptr) doesn't solve users' problems, and a more general, but still
standard, framework is needed. I've no problem with that, but please do try
to start from the "users' problems" part and build from there.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk