Boost :

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-15 13:27:06

Next message: David B. Held: "[boost] Re: Re: Vertical vs. Lateral Policy implementations"
Previous message: Dave Harris: "Re: [boost] is_single_element?"
In reply to: David B. Held: "[boost] Re: Vertical vs. Lateral Policy implementations"
Next in thread: David B. Held: "[boost] Re: Re: Vertical vs. Lateral Policy implementations"
Reply: David B. Held: "[boost] Re: Re: Vertical vs. Lateral Policy implementations"

From: "David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]>
>
> Frankly, the only benefit of the explicitly ordered vertical
> approach that I see over the lateral approach is the elimination
> of MI-EBO.

I wonder... has anybody considered a design where the final smart pointer is
built via successive refinements, with each step being a (possibly more
limited, less featured) smart pointer on its own right?

Next message: David B. Held: "[boost] Re: Re: Vertical vs. Lateral Policy implementations"
Previous message: Dave Harris: "Re: [boost] is_single_element?"
In reply to: David B. Held: "[boost] Re: Vertical vs. Lateral Policy implementations"
Next in thread: David B. Held: "[boost] Re: Re: Vertical vs. Lateral Policy implementations"
Reply: David B. Held: "[boost] Re: Re: Vertical vs. Lateral Policy implementations"

Date view	Thread view	Subject view	Author view

Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk