Re: [boost] Re: SmartPtr (Loki) - auto_ptr/move c'tor issue

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-30 19:13:53

At 05:41 PM 1/30/2003, David B. Held wrote:

 >"Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
 >news:4.3.2.7.2.20030130170421.022da230_at_mailhost.esva.net...
 >> [...]
 >> Which is the best approach is very application dependent. I never
 >> came to a firm conclusion as to which approach was better for
 >> smart pointers; both have advantages.
 >
 >Well, we've managed to hobble along with "absolute orthogonality"
 >so far, so we'll see how long that pans out.  Seems to be holding up
 >pretty well.  It forces you to think very carefully about your design,
 >that's for sure.

The use case I was interested in was an array being managed, and the 
conversion to T* also being present.

The difficulty, of course, is that the public interface has to change based 
on the interaction between two policies. The problem didn't arise in the 
original Loki::smart_ptr because it didn't allow arrays.

(If that isn't clear, let me know and I'll show the actual signatures 
needed for the various cases. It's been a long day and my mind is shutting 
down at the moment.)

--Beman