Re: [boost] Curiousity question

Subject: Re: [boost] Curiousity question
From: Jens Weller (JensWeller_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-10-13 09:42:06

Hi Edward,

this interface seems to exist to ensure the lifetime of the object handed to my library,
5) is hence not the best option.

I'd go with supporting both std::shared_ptr (default) and boost::shared_ptr in my library.

4) would be an interesting option for purely generic code, just modeling the interface of the shared_ptr type, but not restricting it to a concrete type seems smart.
One could still have std::shared_ptr as the default for the template argument.

boost::shared_ptr would be interesting as a way to support pre C++11 code.

cheers,

Jens Weller

> Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Oktober 2016 um 00:58 Uhr
> Von: "Edward Diener" <eldiener_at_[hidden]>
> An: boost_at_[hidden]
> Betreff: [boost] Curiousity question
>
> I would like to ask a design question for any Boost developers or anyone 
> on this mailing list who might care to answer.
> 
> You are designing or working on a library, perhaps for Boost, perhaps 
> for fun, and part of the design of the library has some public 
> functionality taking a shared pointer as input. You:
> 
> 1) Use boost::shared_ptr
> 2) Use std::shared_ptr
> 3) Use both boost::shared_ptr and std::shared_ptr with the same 
> functionality
> 4) Use neither, you roll your own shared pointer-like functionality
> 5) You don't lke shared pointers and use raw pointers instead
> 
> I really am curious about this. I haven't put any limitation on your 
> library or made any presumption on who your library is for, on purpose. 
> Thanks for anyone answering !
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>