From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-02 19:07:53
"Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> "Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > This being said, my opinion on the deleter not being part of the
> > type is often more dangerous than useful.
> Hmm, I didn't mean that my opinion is more dangerous than useful :o).
> I was referring to... oh well, you know.
Hmm...<backs away from Andrei's opinions>...
If we passed the pointer to the Ownership policy, I could make the
boost emulation policies orthogonal again. Otherwise, I have to write
duplicates for the array versions. Here is what I mean:
smart_ptr::smart_ptr(const stored_type& p)
: storage_policy(p), ownership_policy(p)
Of course, we have to add c'tors to all the Ownership policies, but it
seems like a fairly harmless device in general. Dangerous opinions? ;)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk