From: Noel Yap (Noel.Yap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-05-03 22:32:52
"Justin M. Lewis" wrote:
> > > Again, like I said, everything new has some associated learning curve,
> and a
> > > lot of what goes into boost is NEW.
> > The interface to the smart pointers is not new -- it exists in
> > std::auto_ptr<>.
> So what, the interface to smart_ptrs might not be, but you ignored all of
> the other examples. Your argument is basically that we should avoid new
> things whenever possible, because people would have to learn how to use
No, my argument is to stick to old things when possible. In this case,
> And as I pointed out there are very old C ways of doing everything we
> do in C++, but we all learned C++ anyway, because there are advantages to
> the new C++ way of doing things.
Not everything (eg templates).
> And, I'm proposing a yet newer way of doing this that definetly has
> advantages over the old way.
If it has definite advantages, why have so many boost developers not
bought into it?
> Again, how do you differentiate the use of a dumb_ptr that's just you using
> a pointer, because the function is expecting data that has been allocated
> with new, from an out, or in_out param?
One more time:
void f( dumb_ptr< T const > in_ );
void f( dumb_ptr< T > inOut_ );
dumb_ptr< T > f(); // out
int i = 5;
dumb_ptr< int const > in( &i );
dumb_ptr< int > inOut( &i );
dumb_ptr< int > out = f();
f( in );
f( inOut );
Exactly what's confusing you with the above?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk