From: Joaquín Mª López Muñoz (joaquin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-01-25 02:40:10
Hello David, thanks for your review!
David Sankel ha escrito:
> My preference on the equality mechanism would be to make it a
> configuration option via a template parameter during construction with
> the default being (fw1.get()==fw1.get()) instead of
> (&(fw1.get())==&(fw1.get()). The benefit would be that those who would
> understand when this would fail could enable the quicker behavior
> while those who don't understand could remain in blissful ignorance.
Is it really necessary to provide a template parameter to control that?
After all, if flyweight<...> provided (fw1.get()==fw1.get()) semantics,
it's trivial to override this on a per case basis:
typedef flyweight<whatever,...> fw_t;
inline bool operator==(const fw_t& x,const fw_t& y)
Not sure if this deserves a config parameter of its own...
Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk