Re: [boost] Re: Re: policy-based smart pointers are EVIL! (was: Intrusive smart pointer)

From: Dietmar Kuehl (dietmar_kuehl_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-04 20:07:17

David B. Held wrote:

> it seems that the only way for a policy-based pointer to survive
> would be for it to work with shared_ptr.

This view does not reflect the discussion of the LWG and there were also
no votes or things like this. It was more or less a debate on where to
go and trying to find out the direction to move to. That is, if there is
a good system of smart pointers, shared_ptr would be abandoned: It is
not a fixed point the LWG has commited to use.

I haven't been taking notes and I wasn't following all the discussion
highly concentrated but I think that a policy-based smart pointer with
a reasonably easy to use default to be used in interfaces by convention
would be a good candidate. It should, however, support functionality
similar to shared_ptr with some form of policies.
-- 
<mailto:dietmar_kuehl_at_[hidden]> <http://www.dietmar-kuehl.de/>
Phaidros eaSE - Easy Software Engineering: <http://www.phaidros.com/>