From: Philippe A. Bouchard (philippeb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-23 12:36:59
"David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> "Philippe A. Bouchard" <philippeb_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> design is *choice*. You can just as easily choose an external
> count or a wrapped count. What Gennadiy was suggesting is:
> See if you can't write your squad_ptr as a policy set for one of the
> policy-based pointers. Right now, that's a little tricky, since they
> aren't all well-documented and thoroughly tested. But the advantage
... and a little bit more difficult to find discussions about those also.
> of writing it as a policy set is that it makes it easier to define
> interoperability conversions between similar but different pointers.
> Also, it reduces the proliferation of smart pointer headers (since a
> good deal of your code is more or less identical to the various
> smart pointers in Boost currently).
Would it be possible to start using partial template specializations like:
template <class _T>
class shared_ptr< squad_target<_T> >
to remove exception handling and to optimize for pure speed?
Philippe A. Bouchard
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk