[boost] Re: Problem solved: EBO pessimization in smart_ptr not an issue anymore!

From: Andrei Alexandrescu (andrewalex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-02 14:19:37

"David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:133a01c1f1c7$00b96320$6401a8c0_at_boostconsulting.com...
> 2. It does mean that the constructors/destructors of empty policies get
> skipped (compressed_pair doesn't have that issue, but has others)

Good point. I was thinking of issuing some surrogate calls to them.

Another thing worth noting is that the constructors are not even checked in
the empty policy case.

> 3. Is using public inheritance at all really important? My impression is
> that you do this to allow the policies to add interface to the
> smart_ptr... while at the same time you eschew public member functions.

Hey, I think it would be a great idea to use private inheritance. That way,
policies can enhance interface only through free functions, which is my
intent anyway. What do others think?

Andrei