Re: [boost] Interest in a clone_ptr class?

From: Matt Calabrese (rivorus_at_[hidden])
Date: 2006-07-04 20:22:18

On 7/4/06, David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> Your philosophy seems
> to be the same as the one you used to forbid copying of
> ptr_containers: if you think the user _might_ be unhappy with the
> cost, don't provide the capability through the usual interface.  This
> approach has no precedent in Boost or the STL.

I completely agree here and has been one of my biggest gripes with the
ptr_containers.

On 7/4/06, Thorsten Ottosen <thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
> I fail to see the relevance of boost::function is this context. It's not
> exactly exposing any virtual functions in its interface.
>

The relevance is that it is an example of a type that has value semantics
and that logically encapsulates different dynamic types that all share a
common interface. This is the exact concept that you refer to as "extremely
rare" and is the same logical functionality provided by clone_ptr but
through types related by inheritance (which is even just a subset of its
uses).

-- 
-Matt Calabrese