From: AlisdairM (alisdair.meredith_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-12-11 07:59:51
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in
> It is not the virtual destructor overhead that is important, it is the
> protected access. It means that the user can't delete a pointer to the
> base class.
Yes, that is the real point of the protected destructor idiom. Until now I
hadn't realised shared_ptr allowed us to circumvent it!
> Have you read
OK, I'll admit the last time I took a good read of the shared_ptr docs was
before the deleter was added. I hadn't realized quite how much it had
transformed the class.
Thanks for the pointer.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk