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

From: Phil Nash (phil.nash.lists_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-01 20:37:26

[David B. Held]
> "Gennadiy Rozental" <rogeeff_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:aap7k3$c1l$1_at_main.gmane.org...
> > [...]
> > template<typename StoragePolicy,...>
> > struct mi_policies_adaptor : StoragePolicy, OwnershipPolicy
> > {
> > };
> > [...]
> > template<template Policy, template Base>
> > struct chaining_adaptor : Policy, Base
> > {};
> >
> > template<typename StoragePolicy,...>
> > struct chaining_policies_adaptor : chaining_adaptor<StoragePolicy,
> > chaining_adaptor<OwnershipPolicy, ....> > > >
> > {
> > };
> > [...]
>
> This is a cool idea, and deserves some more thought.  I'd like to see
others
> comment on it.

Count me in there. This sounds like the "simple, specialised for smart_ptr"
approach to the policy_mixer idiom that I mentioned in my last post.
I'm not quite sure what Gennadiy refers to when he says that it is not
linear inheritance. I've not looked close enough to see where it becomes
non-linear. We should be able to acheive a linear hierarchy, I'm sure.

Good stuff Gennadiy :-)

[)o
IhIL..