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

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-05 06:37:55

From: "Dietmar Kuehl" <dietmar_kuehl_at_[hidden]>
> 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.

shared_ptr the name, or shared_ptr the semantics, would be abandoned? Or
both?