[boost] Re: shifted_ptr: why?

From: Andrei Alexandrescu (andrewalex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-02 12:55:06

"David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:u8yo3rbof.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> > We'd like to thank this way to the boost community for all
> > the discussions that helped making smart_ptr better. Also, in the
process,
> > we've made a number of observations about exception safety within the
> > context of policy-based design that we think might be of interest.
>
> Cool; I'd like to hear them.

Overselling again? Now those findings of ours might be disappointing to many
:o).

> > We hope to write policies that match the semantics of shared_ptr as
closely
> > as possible. (Maybe not the syntax though; I convinced Dave that friend
> > functions are much better than member functions for this case at least.)
> >
> > So, the state of affairs is, we do have a quality smart_ptr
implementation
> > and test suite. As Dave said, the code, albeit standard, does not work
on
> > most of today's compilers, which makes it less interesting to
> > boost.
>
> I'm sure many of those issues can be dealt with, but that's less
> likely if development continues in some non-Boost context.

Would be great. Maybe now (with a couple more pointers inside Boost or
knocking at its gates), there's enough interest for smart_ptr, interest
focused on streamlining smart_ptr instead of discussing whether smart_ptr is
"evil" or good. So far, there have been some great, I'd say, crucial,
contributions to smart_ptr from inside Boost, plus many that made smart_ptr
better in the same way that punches taken make a boxer stronger :o).

Andrei