Re: [boost] Smart pointer poll

From: Larry Evans (jcampbell3_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-07 16:05:48

"David B. Held" wrote:

>

[snip]

>
> 3. Which is best for Boost, and which is best for a library proposal?
> A) just shared_ptr
> B) just smart_ptr
> C) shared_ptr + smart_ptr
> D) other

Under D), I'd suggest these additions:
1)weighted reference counts:
    because of the advantage in mt
    [See  http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Mail/Message/boost/1193778 ]
2)cyclic reference counts:
    because Martin Wartins in a 5/2 post to comp.lang.c++.moderated indicated
    this would be useful.
    [See
    http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=en&selm=aaraku%24jvs%241%40news.cs.tu-berlin.de? ].