Re: [boost] Re: Deadline for the Standard Library TechnicalReport

[Beman Dawes]

At 11:37 AM 1/28/2003, Andrei Alexandrescu wrote:

>> the current shared_ptr enemies, when in my opinion they perfectly
>> complement each other. But I've grown tired of asking.
>
>I guess I started feeling that way when I've been told that shared_ptr is
>everything everyone will ever need, so there's no need for policy-based
>smart pointers :o).

I think the people (Peter, Greg, Darin, and myself) working on the actual Standard Library shared_ptr proposal believe that they are complementary.

>In a language with template typedefs, there would be no complementarity -
>shared_ptr will be but one point in the design space allowed by smart_ptr.

I think the people working on the actual Standard Library shared_ptr proposal also believe that.

Thus for the Library TR, shared_ptr is a nice step forward.

For the next revision of the standard, when typedef templates (and perhaps named template parameters) are available, then smart_ptr can subsume shared_ptr.

In the meantime, it would really help smart_ptr IMO if a Boost version could be proposed. "Modern C++ Design" and Loki::smart_ptr are a great start, but adding additional policy-based smart pointer experience via a Boost library would help convince the more conservative members of the committee.

--Beman


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