From: Dave Harris (brangdon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-18 18:01:22
On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 05:58:09 -0400 James Curran (JamesCurran_at_[hidden])
> I'm writing an article describing some code where I use
> boost::shared_ptr<>. In the article, I plan on stating: "Considering
> it's general utility, and growing use, [shared_ptr] will
> almost certainly be added to the Standard Library when the next
> C++ Standard is complete (circa 2005 or so), so it safe to start
> using now."
> How accurate do we feel that statement is?
The older, non-intrusive version of shared_ptr has major problems. The
newer, optionally intrusive version is too new to know whether it has
problems. I'd say it was a strong candidate but not "almost certain" to be
-- Dave Harris
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk