From: Philippe A. Bouchard (philippeb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-10-08 14:52:21
David B. Held wrote:
> I'm confused as to whether you are talking about shared_ptr
> or smart_ptr. It looks like you were replying to Peter, who was
> talking about shared_ptr, but it looks like here you are talking
> about smart_ptr.
I was talking about smart_ptr because it wouldn't be possible to change the
members of shared_ptr unless we start using partial specializations that
nobody likes ;(
... same thing with reinterpret_cast<>s ;((
> Whether such policies *could* be written, I don't know, until
> somebody tries it. I don't understand shifted_ptr well enough
> to write one myself, although it's been a while since I looked
> at it. I think a pointer that helps collection would be a nice
> policy to have, but I don't have a lot of time to write new
> policies right now. In fact, I haven't even been following this
> thread very closely, so I don't really know where it's at or
> what has been said. But I think you should try to address
> the concerns brought up during the review, especially the
> documentation, to help make shifted_ptr stand on its own.
> If it can stand on its own, then it might make sense to try to
> implement it in terms of smart_ptr. But to help us out, some
> good documentation would help. ;)
Ok, I just wanted to know the present alternatives & eventual possible
policies before going further with shifted_ptr. I'll keep collector_traits
but I am going to remove the default garbage collector example because it
just confuses people for nothing.
But, I am going to use partial specializations for now because I am not
familiar with the best eventual smart_ptr policies. I am just going to make
it "work", benchmark it by after.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk