Boost logo

Boost :

From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-02 10:39:44

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]>
> [...]
> shared_ptr is not intended to work with COM. shared_ptr solves
> some specific problems; it is not intended to be the ultimate smart
> pointer. It does not, repeat not, compete with Loki::SmartPtr or
> with any other smart pointer.
> [...]
> I am left with the impression that this whole discussion is full of
> misunderstandings. You are trying to justify the existence of
> Loki::SmartPtr by attacking shared_ptr (does it work with COM?
> does everyone need runtime polymorphism? no, and no, in that
> order.) But shared_ptr is not a threat, and nobody questions the
> usefulness of Loki::SmartPtr. I wonder how we got to this point.

Well, I think we got to this point because not everyone really thinks the
way you do. In particular, I get the strong impression that Greg Colvin
more or less is of the opinion that Andrei was specifically addressing.
That is, statements he (Greg) has made seem to indicate that he does,
in fact, favor shared_ptr as the single and sole standard smart pointer
(excessive alliteration unintended). He has specifically said that he
feels that shared_ptr covers enough ground and does so well enough
that a policy-based smart pointer just might not be necessary. Greg,
if I have misunderstood you, please correct me.

Also, I get the impression that Dietmar is also dissatisfied with a
heavily templated smart pointer, although he hasn't mentioned anything
lately (that I've seen). If there really were a consensus that a policy-
based smart pointer is the way to go, I don't think Andrei would spend
his time beating a dead horse.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at