Boost logo

Boost :

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2008-04-12 14:37:05

Frank Mori Hess:

> On Saturday 12 April 2008 12:07 pm, Peter Dimov wrote:
>> So you suggest we throw your improved implementation away? :-) This
>> doesn't
>> seem right to me, as it represents a fair amount of knowledge that will
>> be
>> lost. Maybe we need to move it somewhere, to
>> boost/smart_ptr/esft_constructor_base.hpp, for instance? And link it from
>> the docs.
> Keeping it (and the enable_shared_from_this_light) as example code seems
> fine.

While working on the sp_accept_owner change:

I was reminded that the enhanced esft base actually can't be done in "user
mode" due to the get_deleter support. So it's not just an example; if we
keep it, it has to be "official".

I leave the decision (and the actual revert, should you elect to proceed) to
you. It might be better to wait for a test cycle first. I'll also appreciate
if you try sp_accept_owner for your existing use cases that motivated the
enhanced esft base and, if possible, distill their essence into a test case
that will replace (or complement) esft_constructor_test.

As an aside, if people interested in the Borland compiler are listening, I
have problems with sp_accept_owner_test.cpp on bcc32 5.5.1. It doesn't seem
to recognize my sp_accept_owner overloads. It'd be somewhat disturbing if
this persists for the later Borland versions which we test. Oddly,
shared_from_this_test and esft_regtest appear to work fine, and I've no idea

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at