Subject: Re: [boost] [smart_ptr] shared_ptr template type
From: Frank Mori Hess (frank.hess_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-07-17 08:48:42
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Friday 17 July 2009, Gottlob Frege wrote:
> That is somewhat my point - the topic keeps coming up, so maybe we
> should finally do it.
There was the policy_ptr proposal for boost, which I assume is still in the
sandbox. I even found it listed on some old web copies of the boost review
queue pages, I'm not sure what ultimately happened.
> (Or maybe we need a FAQ saying "don't go
I don't want to tell other people they shouldn't work on it, but my personal
opinion is that designing the ultimate policy based smart pointer that is
everything to everyone is a tar pit (which I'm going to avoid).
> In 2002 there seemed to be lots of policy design discussion. It would
> be interesting to know if we've learned anything over the years.
Well, in 2001 we got Loki::SmartPtr. In the next couple years we had a bunch
of design debate in boost over a boostified version. Now we're in 2009, and
somehow shared_ptr is still king. What I take from that is that there is a
place for exploring other approaches to generalizing smart pointers, such as
the nested matryoshka doll approach I'm playing with in generic_shared. And
also that I want people who think I should just add a policy template
parameter or two, and giving them default values will solve everything, to
leave me alone :)
-----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