From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-05 13:53:19
"Dave Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> On Wednesday, February 05, 2003 1:00 PM [GMT+1=CET],
> David B. Held <dheld_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > > [...]
> > > Type generators are overkill, since unlike with iterator adaptors
> > > there's no need to preserve type identity. Normal inheritance will
> > > work just fine.
> > That's a good point. Do you think public inheritance is ok, or
> > should private be used?
> If you think about it briefly, you'll see that private inheritance would
> defeat the whole purpose ;-)
Do you mean because you would have to replicate the entire smart_ptr
interface? Ah. Then there would be no point to calling it smart_ptr.
You would just create a custom smart_ptr each time. Yes, I guess that
would defeat the whole purpose.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk