Re: [boost] singleton_ptr

From: Pavel Vozenilek (pavel_vozenilek_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-07-18 18:42:49

"Peter Simons" wrote:

> > Others have expressed (perhaps not publicly) that their
> > preferred method would be that secondary destructions are
> > simply no-ops, rather than being errors or asserting at all.
> > Such conflicting interests make it seem like a policy is
> > indeed necessary.
>
> Well, having a policy mechanism won't hurt. I'm all for it. ;-)
>

Adding one more policy reduces number of people who
will use a template. This is equivalent of adding one more
parameter to a function and seeing people writing their
own homemade version.

/Pavel