Re: [boost] Re: Deadline for the Standard Library TechnicalReport

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-28 13:11:36

At 11:37 AM 1/28/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

 >> the current shared_ptr enemies, when in my opinion they perfectly
 >> complement each other. But I've grown tired of asking.
 >
 >I guess I started feeling that way when I've been told that shared_ptr is
 >everything everyone will ever need, so there's no need for policy-based
 >smart pointers :o).

I think the people (Peter, Greg, Darin, and myself) working on the actual 
Standard Library shared_ptr proposal believe that they are complementary.

 >In a language with template typedefs, there would be no complementarity -
 >shared_ptr will be but one point in the design space allowed by 
smart_ptr.

I think the people working on the actual Standard Library shared_ptr 
proposal also believe that.

Thus for the Library TR, shared_ptr is a nice step forward.

For the next revision of the standard, when typedef templates (and perhaps 
named template parameters) are available, then smart_ptr can subsume 
shared_ptr.

In the meantime, it would really help smart_ptr IMO if a Boost version 
could be proposed. "Modern C++ Design" and Loki::smart_ptr are a great 
start, but adding additional policy-based smart pointer experience via a 
Boost library would help convince the more conservative members of the 
committee.

--Beman