[boost] Re: [boost.move] move_ptr

From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-08-27 12:47:39

On Aug 27, 2004, at 11:15 AM, Bronek Kozicki wrote:

> Howard Hinnant wrote:
>> I can see the utility of something like this.  Perhaps we are talking 
>> about two different kinds of smart pointers, neither inherently 
>> better than the other.  Sometimes you need hatchet, sometimes you 
>> need a carving knife.
>
> maybe we could use partial template specialization for this? And even 
> for third one, where deleter object is copied into smart pointer, as 
> it is in shared_ptr?

I think you are essentially turning it into a policy-based smart 
pointer design - not that there's anything wrong with that.

I'd like to see (or create for myself) a feature/cost comparison 
between:

1. pointer<T, D>    - holds a compressed_pair<T*, D>
2. pointer<T>(t, d) - trampoline function design
3. pointer<T>(t, d) - internal copy design (a-la shared_ptr)

That's probably a non-trivial task...

-Howard