From: Jonathan Turkanis (technews_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-21 10:32:08
"Daniel Wallin" <dalwan01_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> Also, in general, it is far easier to start with less and add more
> than to throw everything in from the start and remove later.
I don't think so. I've already written the policy based version, with
two policies -- no_storage and auto_storage; I'm just working on one
or two more. It should be quite simple to get rid of it later.
> If adding a template parameter is absolutely essential, we'll end up
> with a half-baked smart_ptr<> and we could just as well spell
> smart_ptr<T, move_semantics, array_storage>
> smart_ptr<T, move_semantics, scalar_storage>
I liked Howard's ideas about handling smart pointers to arrays, and
think it should be straigforward to implement. (I haven't done it yet
because I don't want to obscure the issue of deletion policy.) I don't
think adding treament for arrays will require an additional template
parameter, so we shouldn't end up with a long list of policies.
Furthermore, the deletion storage policy doesn't have to be a template
parameter: I could illustrate the various possibilities with several
separate move_ptr templates; the policy parameter just happens to be
the simplest and most elegant solution, for the moment.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk