From: Andrei Alexandrescu (andrewalex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-03 14:44:50
"David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> 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.
On the contrary, my feeling is that at Curaçao, the committee's view on the
issue made an important turn. They are seemingly very unwilling to accept a
closed design, and see an open design as the only acceptable solution.
During the first round of standardization, there was no open design
proposed, so the committee settled for auto_ptr, which has a very closed
design and a narrow charter. Now that we have design, code, and experience
with smart_ptr (historically, Loki::SmartPtr), things are radically
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk