From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-26 17:28:00
"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> "Stefan Seefeld" <seefeld_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> | Gennadiy Rozental wrote:
> | > IMO
> | > the more flexible the solution is - the more users it will end up
> | > attracting.
> | I don't agree with this statement at all. Making things more flexible
> | incures a semantic dilution (not to speak of the added complexity
> | necessary to support that flexibility) that encourages users to just
> | 'roll their own' solution.
> | I'm not saying that flexibility or genericity is bad. But it comes
> | with a price.
> I don't think it is unfair to see it as an expert tool and not something
> ordinary user need to use or worry about learning. That implies that we do
> want it in boost, but that it might not be a good candidate for std::.
The plan we talked about several years ago was that if the standard library
has a PBSP, there would also be classes (or similar typedef templates,
depending on core language changes) like:
template<class T> class shared_ptr : public smart_ptr<T, one set of
template<class T> class scoped_ptr : public smart_ptr<T, another set of
These would be recommended to non-expert users. One of my personal criteria
for a good PBSP is that it can supply the feature set needed to provide
those pre-configured smart pointers.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk