Boost logo

Boost :

From: Sam Partington (Sam.Partington_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-25 09:14:51

> 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.

The syntax is basically my only problem with it.

Oh also debugging would be made a lot more tricky. But it would be eassy to
have a debug only version which could have a member T* which is initialised
but not used for anything, that for me would make debugging a lot easier.


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at