Re: [boost] [review] Exception

From: Jeremy Maitin-Shepard (jbms_at_[hidden])
Date: 2007-10-18 23:56:51

"Emil Dotchevski" <emil_at_[hidden]> writes:

>> >(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
>> >dependencies.
>> 
>> 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.

shared_ptr requires additional allocations.  Since in
this case the optimization is very easy to implement, it should probably
be done.

-- 
Jeremy Maitin-Shepard