From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-01 13:59:46
"Rozental, Gennadiy" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> writes:
>> "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.
If every library for which a more-general framework could be
envisioned had to wait around for that more general framework to
appear, we'd never approve anything.
I'm not saying we should approve shifted_ptr neccessarily, but the
mere fact that it isn't a policy in a PBSP framework (which we don't
have) shouldn't be grounds for rejecting it.
-- Dave Abrahams Boost Consulting www.boost-consulting.com
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk