From: Fernando Cacciola (fcacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-03 15:40:43
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, May 03, 2002 4:49 PM
Subject: [boost] Re: Smart pointer poll
> "Fernando Cacciola" <fcacciola_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > The bottom line is that I don't think that a policy-based design, which
> > gives maximum flexibility, should imply that well-though packages
> > also be provided.
> I'd like to ask you a question - do you see the inner typedef solution
> "ptr<T>::some_impl" acceptable for these well-thought-ouy packages?
It worries me the lookup problem pointed out by Peter Dimov:
'x' can't be deduced as a template parameter to instantiate a template
function of the form:
template<class T> void f ( typename ptr<T>::y );
Straight public derivation is more cumbersome from the library
implementators, but it is easier for the user:
class shared_ptr : public smart_ptr<T,A,B,C,D>
// fwding ctors here.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk