Re: [boost] shared_ptr: policy for usage_count lock

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-03-01 12:18:16

At 12:32 PM 2/10/2004, Jody Hagins wrote:
 >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.

One difficulty with a locking-policy template parameter is that it changes 
the shared_ptr's type. This is a problem with passing the shared_ptr to a 
third-party or other library component which expects a different type.

--Beman