[boost] Re: Re: Re: TR2 and C++0x heads up

From: Beman Dawes (bdawes_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-04-26 19:59:28

"Iain K. Hanson" <iain.hanson_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
news:1114524401.14534.421.camel_at_dev-ihanson.ct.uk.videonetworks.com...
> On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 21:10 -0400, Beman Dawes wrote:
>> "Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
>> news:d4gi2c$2jd$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
>>
>> > In Lillehammer we rejected a policy-based smart pointer...
>>
>> That isn't what happened. The committee's wiki describes the LWG's 
>> position:
>>
>> "No support for a policy-based framework at this time. This is a 
>> refinement
>> of Loki, but, while Loki is in use, this refinement isn't. We'll consider
>> such a proposal later, if there is widespread practice and strong 
>> arguments
>> for it."
>
> Is the requirement for a library to be in "widespread" use general for
> all libraries or specific to policy_ptr because the TR1 already has
> smart_ptr?

It isn't specific to shared_ptr.

Every proposal is evaluated on it's own merits, but lots of LWG regulars 
look for "existing practice". How widespread that has to be is up to the 
judgement of individual members. In the case of the STL, the LWG (and full 
committee) were willing to accept the lack of widespread existing practice 
because the perceived advantages seemed so great.

--Beman