Re: [boost] [shared_ptr] Why operator< uses internal_less?

Subject: Re: [boost] [shared_ptr] Why operator< uses internal_less?
From: joaquin_at_[hidden]
Date: 2008-10-10 01:46:03

emil_at_[hidden] escribió:
> On 10/9/08, Peter Dimov <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>   
>> http://open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2004/n1590.html
>>
>> At the last meeting, the committee accepted Herve Broenimann's proposal
>>
>> http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2008/n2637.pdf
>>
>> to change std::shared_ptr's operator< to compare get(). I don't particularly
>> like the specifics of that paper, but we'll probably need to change
>> boost::shared_ptr (and weak_ptr) to match.
>>     
>
> I don't see a reason to make this change in Boost. It is impossible to
> predict how many bugs it will introduce in user code, although it could
> -- perhaps too late -- highlight problems unforeseen by N2637. IMHO,
> the committee is crazy for making this kind of untested semantic changes
> in shared_ptr this late in the game.
>   

Well, the committee is polishing the designing of the *future* 
std::shared_ptr, so they
are not concerned about backwards compatibility issues. Another question 
is whether
boost::shared_ptr should follow suit.

Joaquín M López Muñoz
Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo