[boost] Re: shifted_ptr: why?

From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-02 02:05:39

"Rozental, Gennadiy" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:1373D6342FA1D4119A5100E029437F6405E1FA7E_at_clifford.devo.ilx.com...
> [...]
> 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.

I, for one, disagree.  I personally don't think compilers are up to
the challenge of handling a Boost-quality PBSP.  Not even VC 7.1,
though it's close, and it might be coaxed into mostly playing nice.
Until then, I think it's entirely appropriate for Boost to seriously
consider other smart pointer designs not covered by the current
set of smart pointers.  I'm also not entirely convinced that shifted_ptr
could so easily be implemented as a policy set for a PBSP.  Even
things that seem like minor details can affect the required interface
for such a framework.

Dave

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.521 / Virus Database: 319 - Release Date: 9/23/2003