From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-19 18:01:02
"Dave Harris" <brangdon_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> In-Reply-To: <aeoir4$lu4$1_at_[hidden]>
> On Tue, 18 Jun 2002 19:24:10 -0500 David B. Held
> (dheld_at_[hidden]) wrote:
> > [intrusive versus non-intrusive shared_ptr]
> > What were the problems?
> The main issue was the lack of a safe way to get a counted pointer
> from a raw pointer. It's not a problem if you can avoid raw pointers
> everywhere, but that isn't always feasible.
Oh, when you said shared_ptr "[had] major problems", I thought you
meant that it was unreliable or buggy. I would consider your points
disagreements in design decisions. I thought that odd, because
shared_ptr was always rock solid when I've used it.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk