Re: [boost] Review of a safer memory management approach for C++?

Subject: Re: [boost] Review of a safer memory management approach for C++?
From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2010-05-28 10:08:46

[Please don't top post.  Try outlook-quotefix or oe-quotefix:
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/outlook-quotefix/,
http://home.in.tum.de/~jain/software/oe-quotefix/
]

At Fri, 28 May 2010 15:32:22 +0200, Ingo Loehken wrote:
>> From:   David Abrahams <dave_at_[hidden]>
>> 
>> Furthermore, your logic seems flawed to me.  By analogy:
>> 
>>   There is no need for Intel processors (we can all use AMD).
>>   Therefore there is no use for an Intel processor?
> 
> No, thats a twisted interpretation. I'm just pointing out, there is a need 
> for shared ownership.

I'm not sure I agree that there actually is a need.  All the shared
ownership scenarios I can think of can be translated into
single-ownership-at-a-higher-level.  That, however, is not always
convenient.

-- 
Dave Abrahams           Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com
BoostPro Computing
http://www.boostpro.com