From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-02 02:05:39
"Rozental, Gennadiy" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> 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.
--- 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk