From: Andrei Alexandrescu (andrewalex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-02 14:19:37
"David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> 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?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk