From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-24 12:20:55
From: "Philippe A. Bouchard" <philippeb_at_[hidden]>
> Inconsistancy I've noticed: the whole point of policy-based design is
> *choice*... but my preferences towards speed / memory gains with operator
> new (size_t, void *) in a flexible way are shoved away.
>From what I've seen, the complaints have been that you've proposed an awkward
syntax compared to the norm for smart pointers and yet another smart pointer
name, not to mention that there were some implementation problems. Some have
suggested that you look into providing your smart pointer scheme via the more
normative policy-based smart pointers already available.
If you investigate policy-based smart pointers and are successful in creating
policies that produce your desired behavior in one of the extant smart pointer
frameworks, you will have an easy to use, yet highly efficient, smart pointer
with ordinary syntax. If you do that, I think it will get a better reaction.
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk