Re: [boost] Re: Deadline for the Standard Library Technical Report

[Beman Dawes]

At 05:47 PM 1/27/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

>Q. Why doesn't shared_ptr provide (your pet feature here)?
>A. Because (your pet feature here) would mandate a reference counted
>implementation or a linked list implementation, or some other specific
>implementation. This is not the intent.
>
>This is a presupposition. Someone wants to mandate lazy
>initialization/specific dereference testing/specific initialization
>testing/tons others. Would any of these require a refcounted/reflinked
>implementation?

That particular FAQ item was written quite a while ago, before weak_ptr support, before custom deleter support, etc. We had gotten several requests for features that seemed to tilt the spec strongly toward one or the other of the implementation techniques.

The question of whether "any of these require a refcounted/reflinked
implementation?" is a good one.

The question came up with use_count(), and was handled by not requiring use_count() be constant complexity.

For a shared-ownership smart pointer with weak_ptr support, I expect some people will say that mandates a refcounted rather than reflinked implementation. I don't think that is true, but it may make a reflinked implementation less attractive. What's your opinion on that?

--Beman




_______________________________________________
Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost