Boost logo

Boost :

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.

Gennadiy.


Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk