From: Nicola Musatti (nmusatti_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-26 02:17:08
Daniel Frey wrote:
> On Tue, 25 Feb 2003 08:34:43 +0100, Nicola Musatti wrote:
>>I don't have a strong opinion in either direction, but I do feel that it
>>is important that this is thought over. Overloading checked_delete() on
>>purpose in a user defined namespace might be considered a way to provide
>>a smart pointer with a custom deleter. Is this really something bad?
> It won't work as the call is ambiguous and thus rejected by the compiler.
> But the user it free to provide his own checked_deleter along with his own
> checked_delete, so there is no limitation that would result from the above
> fix AFAICS. If you agree, I will make the change in CVS.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk