Re: [boost] Smart pointer poll

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-15 10:14:52

At 08:02 AM 5/15/2002, Peter Dimov wrote:

 >From: "Stewart, Robert" <stewart_at_[hidden]>

 >> > B) shared_ptr<T>, implementation required to be derived from a
 >> > general
 >> > pointer framework
 >>
 >> I don't see why you would need to require this implementation.
 >
 >The alternative is included because people have expressed this opinion
 >during the debate. (Beman's summary seems to imply that some LWG members
 >feel the same way.) I presume that their reasoning is: if the C++ 
standard
 >library includes a smart pointer framework, then the other standard smart
 >pointers should be derived from the framework as a proof of concept.

That is probably the primary reason, but at least some members have other 
concerns. Some are very concerned with interoperability between libraries 
(as has been discussed here, too).  Some may feel it is easier to teach and 
understand smart pointers if specific ones are just, in effect, typedef 
templates for a common framework. Some are put off by the apparent 
complexity of having both a smart pointer framework and specific smart 
pointers.

--Beman