From: Frank Mori Hess (fmhess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-12 10:43:57
On Friday 11 April 2008 18:10, Peter Dimov wrote:
> I agree that providing the ability to build this lightweight helper may
> be valuable to some. But I'm not sure that we should provide several
> esft classes in Boost (except possibly as examples). This of course
> raises the question of which esft base (of the three candidates we have)
> should be provided.
I'd say go with the 1.35-like implementation. I think using
sp_accept_owner is preferable to shared_from_this in constructors, due to
the exception concerns I posted about earlier:
and I view reducing the functionality of esft in order to reduce the memory
footprint by 1 pointer too extreme for the general case.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk