From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-01 05:50:24
From: "Howard Hinnant" <hinnant_at_[hidden]>
> Policies or not, open issues in my mind are:
> 1. template typedef's are a probable future language feature. Assuming
> we have that, how does that change the picture?
Not in any significant ways, I'd say.
> 2. How will the introduction of move semantics affect smart pointers?
Not in any significant ways. :-)
> I can easily see a use for a smart pointer with no copy semantics, but
> move semantics.
That would be 'auto_ptr', I guess.
> 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?
I believe that it will. The appropriate interface for a resource varies
wildly. But this is just my opinion.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk