Re: [boost] shared_ptr: policy for usage_count lock

From: Jody Hagins (jody-boost-011304_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-02-10 12:32:58

On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:10:22 -0600
Slawomir Lisznianski <slisznianski_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> Do we sacrifice platforms that do not support atomic instructions
> then? ;-) I was faintly aiming to show a bigger picture, hence my
> proposal for locking policy. IMHO, overriding operator= is a valuable
> alternative, but puts an ado on users.

I agree that a template parameter describing the locking policy is a
much better solution.  It provides all users of shared_ptr with what
they want, and it does not cost anything for the times when a lock is
not desired.

-- 
Jody Hagins
Consultant, n.:
	An ordinary man a long way from home.