From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-04 14:44:01
>> These smart_ptr/policy_ptr variations appear all the time. I've decided
>> 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
You got it.
> 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.
Yes. Policy implementation and convenience typedef is my choice for the
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk