Subject: Re: [boost] intrusive_ptr design question
From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-07-06 17:11:25
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Monday 06 July 2009, Zachary Turner wrote:
> Making major interface changes to existing libraries is always inherently
> risky but is there any reason that adding a policy to shared_ptr, with a
> default policy template argument that uses the existing ref counting
> strategy, would be bad?
The FAQ of the shared_ptr documentation addresses this question.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (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