From: Daniel Wallin (dalwan01_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-21 18:59:35
Jonathan Turkanis wrote:
> "Daniel Wallin" <dalwan01_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>>if it was, that shouldn't dictate design choices.
> First, I'm just proposing the policy parameter so we will have a
> number of options to choose from. Right now, there isn't any client
> code to break.
Yes I am aware of that, and what I'm saying is that we should be
careful about complicating things too much.
> Second, it shouldn't break any code, if people agree with you and
> don't want custom deleters:
> template< typename T,
> template<typename> class Deletion = no_storage >
> class move_ptr;
> (I've made the policy into a template template parameter, for
You almost certainly don't want this. If you need to generate the
deleter type somehow, make it a metafunction class.
> People who agree with you will just use plain move_ptr<T>, so their
> code won't be affected. People who like and use custom deleters will
> argue against the removal of the policy parameter.
Again, the point is that if we were to get to a point where people use
custom deleters it's (almost) too late to remove them, regardless of how
bad a design choice they turn out to be.
> But debate is good, isn't it?
-- Daniel Wallin
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk