From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-03 14:15:40
"Larry Evans" <jcampbell3_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Based on the lack of response to my other postings about collecting
> cycles, I have my doubts whether boost would be interested in yet
> another smart pointer. I could be wrong.
Well, Boost has been interested in cycles for a long time, as is evidenced
by Greg Colvin's cyclic_ptr, which has been in the files area for as long as
I can remember. Probably the main factor is that cycles in shared_ptr<>
are currently handled by weak_ptr<>, and so that method has a lot of
momentum. But if you can show another method of dealing with cycles
is compelling and advantageous, through the use of benchmarks and
use cases, then I don't see why they shouldn't be taken into consideration.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk