From: Rozental, Gennadiy (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-01 13:09:43
> "Rozental, Gennadiy" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:
> > Hi,
> > I looked over this submission. Even though I have several
> issues with
> > the code and implementation, my main concern here is: why?
> > Why would we need another custom smart pointer component, while it
> > could be easily implemented using PBSP plus custom object generator?
> Are you sure? IIUC, PBSP would be little help the
> interesting part of this design. The smart pointer interface
> is the easy part.
I mean that it easily fit into PBSP framework. Policy implementation
wouldn't be more complex then current one. Plus we will have all the
advantages of the framework.
> > Did I miss something?
> > As it stands my vote it to reject this submission. Later on
> it could
> > be implemented as specific PBSP policy.
> And that would make it acceptable?
Yes. As another custom policy for generic framework.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk