From: Dave Harris (brangdon_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-10-07 08:07:53
nesotto_at_[hidden] (Thorsten Ottosen) wrote (abridged):
> It has never been the intention to support a path of "upgrade". The
> semantics are very different from vector<shared_ptr<T> > and
> ptr_vector<T>. The semantics are closer to vector<T> when it comes
> to "copying".
OK, thanks. It sounds like the library isn't really doing what I expect or
want. To the point where I question whether "ptr_vector" is a good name
for it, since it does not behave like a vector of pointers. Maybe
something like "poly_vector" would better reflect the intent.
I think I've missed the end of the review period now - they just whizz
past, don't they? - but that probably doesn't matter because all I can
really say is that I don't think I am a prospective user of the library. I
might have been interested in a container which took ownership of the
things pointed-to, but was otherwise a simple container of pointers.
-- Dave Harris, Nottingham, UK
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk