Greg Colvin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> One aspect of the semantic complexity that bothers me
> is that the various flavors of smart pointer may not
> be interchangeable. shared_ptr is partly parameterized
> on implementation, but the interface and semantics
> remain the same. For a policy-based smart pointer
> to be usable I think you need a clear set of concepts
> that clients can use as requirements, and a clear
> delineation of which combinations of policies support
> which concepts.
That is definitely a requirement before I can buy into this "advantage"
described in Peter's post:
2. It allows users to globally switch to another smart pointer
type by changing a typedef:
typedef counted_policy default_ownership;
--
David Abrahams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution
_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
