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

From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-02 15:03:57

"David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:00c201c1f210$ccdc9050$6401a8c0_at_boostconsulting.com...
>
> From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]>
> > [...]
> > 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?

I personally don't like free function interfaces, but I could live with
them.  I guess I'm thinking that maybe:

smart_ptr<FILE, ...> f;
f.write("Hello, world!");

is better than:

write(f, "Hello, world!");

I guess that's just a matter of personal style.  But if I saw the
latter form in someone else's code, I would go looking for a
namespace level free function, instead of checking out the
pointer policies.

> To put it another way, is it important to use inheritance at all?

Are you suggesting that outright containment might be an option?
That would also force top-level forwarding of all interfaces, eh?

> Are you using the Barton/Nackman trick? If so, I am in principle
> in favor of private inheritance.

What's the Barton/Nackman trick?

Dave