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

From: Greg Colvin (Gregory.Colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-19 21:17:37

At 05:24 PM 1/19/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:
>"Terje Slettebø" <tslettebo_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>news:038e01c2bf0e$cc8f35a0$cb6c6f50_at_pc...
>>I'm also all for simplicity, cohesion, decoupling, do the simplest thing
>that could possibly work (XP/pragmatic programmers), etc., and I'm sure
>Andrei is, as well. After all, when Loki's typelists have been discussed,
>he's stated that they are heavily KISSed. Others have argued that the
>flexibility of MPL makes it worth it. So it's a little ironic situation.
>:)<
>
>I did a good job (until now) abstaining myself from doing the **exact**
>same remark... I'm not sure how an argument and its exact opposite could
>lead to a congruent viewpoint.
>
>Back to pbd smart pointers, looks like nobody needs policy-based smart
>pointers coz they're so complex and shared_ptr just works for everybody,
>yet new xyz_ptr classes designed from scratch seem to appear around here
>quite often :o\. I just can't stop remarking how easy they can all be
>implemented as policies of Loki::SmartPtr.

In my opinion, all that stands in the way of boost::smart_ptr is
the effort of submitting a proposal and seeing it through review.