Re: [boost] Re: Re: Smart pointers: One more implementation +question

From: Dave Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-05 09:50:45

On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 9:32 AM [GMT+1=CET],
Daniel Frey <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Pavel Vasiliev wrote:
> >
> > Conclusion: IMO, policy-based implementations like Loki::SmartPtr<>
> > and "fixed" ones like boost::shared_ptr<T> or my refc_ptr<T> serve
> > different needs. Do I say something new? Hardly.
>
> Hoare/Knuth:
>
> "Premature optimization is the root of all evil"
>
> Me:
>
> "Premature flexibility is the root of all evil"
>
> Stone me, Andrei :o)

I don't think it's premature.  There's certainly plenty of evidence by now
that people want a variety of different smart pointers.

I still have some questions which haven't been satisfied about how to get
there, of course...

-- 
Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting
http://www.boost-consulting.com