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

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-30 19:55:50

"David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]> writes:

> "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.

What about the extra size due to the common compiler feature, "no
empty base optimization in the presence of MI?"  That was another
problem solved by using a chain of policy templates.

-- 
                       David Abrahams
   dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution