Re: [boost] Re: Policy-based smart pointers revisisted

From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-19 20:42:29

----- Original Message -----
From: "Alisdair Meredith" <alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden]>

> The simplicity is simply too big a lure.  Although we could tune and
> focus our pointers more effectively using policies and Loki, we then
> have the complexity of many pointer types running through our code, and
> having to remember the nuances of how each one was defined.  Using the
> basic 3 mentioned above simply cuts out the clutter.

I don't buy this argument about the "complexity of many pointer types."  I'm
not going to make a judgement on whether a few distinct smart pointers are
better than a single super pointer.  I think we should have both and let
users use whichever the like better.  However, all smart pointers provide
basically the same interface, so keeping track of that is not that big an
issue, as the differences in interface exist because of the various purposes
of different smart pointers.  Also, because smart pointers are templates,
you already have a different smart pointer every time that you instantiate
it with a different type.  The compatibility issues between smart_ptr_A<T>
and smart_ptr_B<T> can be handled without significantly more difficulty than
smart_ptr<base> and smart_ptr<derived>.

2c,
Paul Mensonides