From: Emil Dotchevski (emil_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-18 18:41:09
> >(a) is a valid concern, OTOH shared_ptr is such a low level component
> >of Boost that -- as careful as I am in avoiding physical coupling -- I
> >don't consider it a real dependency; rather, it's a tool for avoiding
> Any reason for not using intrusive_ptr? Shared_ptr may be a low level
> part of Boost, but I'm not sure it should be lower level than this library.
> A library like this is overdue in my opinion.
I don't have a particular reason for not using intrusive_ptr.
I also don't have a particular reason not to use shared_ptr.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk