From: Gennadiy Rozental (rogeeff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-27 03:50:04
"Philippe A. Bouchard" <philippeb_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Ok. I've concluded that no one replies when it's not perfect.
I would conclude the following: nobody what to *invest the time* in this
until you justify WHY?
Not that I disagree with your efficiency reasoning or your pointer does not
do what promissed (I do not know that). It's not the point. There are a lot
of different smart pointers out there. Some people happily or not using raw
pointer. There are boost smart_ptr library that has a hell lot of happy
users that do not bother with efficiency *that much*. To justify wide
attention to non-conventional smart pointer interface, first thing to do is
to prove that conventional way does not work here while yours does. Only in
this case it has a future. And by "conventional" I mean Smart Pointer design
pattern with well defined interface, most closely (IMO) approximated in
generic way by Policy-Based smart-pointer framework. And I believe that
namely the usage of such framework will become (becoming?) the conventional
way for defining custom (and regular) smart pointers.
P.S. BTW What he word Policy mean in your context? I think it could be
confusing if it different from more or less established by Andrei
P.P.S. All the above is my personal opinion. Other boosters may correct me
if I wrong.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk