From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-03 11:55:35
"Greg Colvin" <greg_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Note that the objections to counted_ptr were never that it wasn't
> customizable enough, but that people who needed it could just as
> well roll their own, so why clutter up the standard?
On the other hand, it looks like the LWG is a lot more open to a
more customizable pointer *now*, so why shouldn't we let them
take a look at one?
> So I have some fear that a Loki-style smart pointer could meet the
> same fate as counted_ptr did, and that pushing it too hard might
> prevent a simpler shared_ptr proposal from being accepted.
If this is a major concern, we can always propose shared_ptr +
smart_ptr as good buddies that play nice. And if smart_ptr fails,
shared_ptr can still carry the ball. But so far, it sounds to me like
smart_ptr is something people want, but are scared to death to have
or use. It's a curious situation. I wish people would just try it, and
see if it works.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk