[boost] Re: Re: Move semantics (was: Boost.Threads Locking Dilemma)

From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-05-17 15:32:17

"William E. Kempf" <williamkempf_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:OE68UjACRSRRseCaa2300000b0b_at_hotmail.com...
> ----- Original Message -----
> [...]
> Now, rename smart_ptr to smart_resource and move the pointer
> syntax into a policy and then we'd be closer.

Well, even though operator-> and operator* end up in the public interface,
they are not callable, since the policy does not define some necessary
functions (get_pointer() and get_reference()).  However, point taken about
the names and such.

> However, my point was that policies that make sense for smart pointers
> often don't make sense for smart locks.  The best example is a policy of
> shared ownership.  This common policy in the domain of pointers is
> dangerous at best in the domain of locks.

True, but you don't have to provide a shared ownership policy, and then
people could not use it.

> Hopefully this clears up what point I was trying to make.

Yes it does.  Thanks.

Dave