From: Douglas Paul Gregor (gregod_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-01 16:08:42
On Wed, 1 Oct 2003, Rozental, Gennadiy wrote:
> > 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
We don't have a solid proposal for a generic smart pointer framework. I'm
not even sure we have a concensus that PBSPs are the way to go. By calling
for the rejection of shifted_ptr on the grounds that it should use a PBSP
framework, you're in effect requiring the author to write that PBSP
framework, get it accepted, and then come back with shifted_ptr. We can't
require that: it's just not fair to library authors.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk