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
>> 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
-- Jeremy Maitin-Shepard
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk