From: Rob Stewart (stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-04 14:17:02
From: "Gennadiy Rozental" <gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden]>
> These smart_ptr/policy_ptr variations appear all the time. I've decided to
> just ignore them. People should be able to find PBSP themselves and know
> that it's all just another policy.
Is this a backhanded way of saying, "you're wasting your time
because we'll have a PBSP soon and it will do everything?" Even
if we do get a PBSP sometime soon, it still needs policies to
provide the desired behavior. Then, you need some way of
packaging it nicely for this purpose. Otherwise, you create an
uglier wart that's harder to use. IOW, even with a PBSP, you'd
probably want at least a header with the policies and some
wrapper class or typedefs to make it easier to use.
-- Rob Stewart stewart_at_[hidden] Software Engineer http://www.sig.com Susquehanna International Group, LLP using std::disclaimer;
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk