RE: [boost] Re: shifted_ptr: why?

From: Rozental, Gennadiy (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-01 15:12:21

> 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.

Let's not over generalize here. We are talking about specific library and
specific generic framework that was extensively discussed here and not
something will couldn't even envision.
 
> I'm not saying we should approve shifted_ptr necessarily, 
> 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.

In this specific case I disagree. We know more or less that there is an
ability to design generic framework for smart pointer  class of solutions
(There are several attempts already to formalize it). No need to produce
numerous custom solution while we better spent our efforts on generic one
(and any new library is some effort - effort to test, effort to publish,
effort to support and so on).

I still feel that in this particular case we already in a position to accept
only generic solution as a new submission. Any other step would be a waste
of efforts.

Gennadiy.