Re: [boost] Proposal to add smart_ptr to the boost library

From: David Maisonave (boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-01-30 00:27:58

"Larry Evans" <cppljevans_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:<drk4c6$vu8$1_at_[hidden]>...
> On 01/29/2006 06:15 PM, David Maisonave wrote:
> > "Larry Evans" <cppljevans_at_[hidden]> wrote in message 
> > news:<drafuf$v06$1_at_[hidden]>...
> [snip]
> Do you mean the test driver code in libs/policy_ptr/test is very 
> confusing? In particular, do you find the std_ptr_shared_ptr_test.cpp 
> confusing?

I could only answer that question if I could find that file.
Where are you getting this file from?
I don't see a reference to it using the following link:
http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/boost-sandbox/boost-sandbox/boost/poli
cy_ptr/policy/

Could you please provide a full link to this test?

> 
> > 
> > No.  In general, reference-link is able to out perform 
> > reference-count logic.  Smart_ptr has a policy for both methods, 
> > where-as shared_ptr only does reference-count.
> > 
> OTOH, policy_ptr, also based on Alexandrescu's smart pointer library, 
> and has, AFAICT, a reflinked policy in:
> 
>    boost-sandbox/boost/policy_ptr/policy/ref_linked.hpp
> 
> What might be interesting is to compare the two methods of specifying 
> policies.  I know David Held at first did it one way, and then 
> switched to the current way for some reason.  Maybe you could compare 
> the pros and cons to your method vs. Held's method.

The only advantage I found with reference-count is that it requires less
memory.
Other than that, in my test it performs the worse when compared to
reference-link and reference-intrusive.
I don't understand why reference-count was picked instead of reference-link
for the boost::shared_ptr