Re: [boost] Smart pointer poll

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-04 16:37:19

At 02:20 PM 5/3/2002, David B. Held wrote:

 >I would like to see people comment on the various questions:
 >
 >1. Is a policy-based smart pointer still worth pursuing,

Very much so.

 > or are there too
 >many contentious issues that will never get resolved?

Extensive discussions about the design or implementation of a policy-based 
smart pointer doesn't mean it is a bad idea.  In fact, the opposite is 
true.  People are willing to put a lot of effort into discussion and trial 
implementations because they think a policy-based smart pointer is worth 
great effort to perfect.

As far as resolving issues goes, it is pretty simple.  Ask Andrei.  Even if 
a bunch of people offer opinions, and some help with the actual code, 
Andrei is still the lead.  It is his library.

Boost isn't a committee and isn't a democracy.

Library developers make the final decision about the features of their 
library.

 >3. Which is best for Boost,

 >C) shared_ptr + smart_ptr

Boost is plenty broad enough to support both, until one evolves to the 
point where the developers involved agree one should swallow the other.

 >  and which is best for a [standard] library proposal?

Both have to be finished and stable before it is 100% possible to answer 
that question.

--Beman