From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-03-20 11:52:14
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Thursday 20 March 2008 11:25 am, Peter Dimov wrote:
> It's better to omit the owned() accessor unless/until we have a use case
> for it.
> As a minor stylistic issue, I'd prefer !expired() instead of expired() ==
> You might want to add tests for ownership sharing, !( early_px < px ) &&
> !( px < early_px ).
Ah, yes. That's what I was trying to get at with some of the use count
checking, but didn't realize there was a better way.
> One final question, in:
> BOOST_TEST( early_px.use_count() > 0 );
> what does use_count() return? 2? Do we want to test against 2 directly, or
> are we to leave the initial use count unspecified?
Yes, it returns 2. We can test for equality if you prefer. I just left it
unspecified because I felt like the 2 was just an implementation detail
> Do you have SVN write access?
Yes, just tell me what/when is ok to commit and I should be able to do it.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk