"David B. Held" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> [...]
>> That is a very clean approach, and assuming it's OK to keep the
>> the sole copy of p in storage_policy, even efficient.
>
> I'm not sure anyone would use a pointer that kept multiple copies of
> p. Wouldn't that make it pretty fat?
Yeah, that was my point.
>> > [...]
>> > Ownership may have state, but but it need only be consulted
>> > when the resource could possibly be shared or moved. That's
>> > only possible if the smart_ptr c'tor has completed.
>>
>> I'm not sure that's true for intrusively-counted types.
>
> Ouch. This is a serious problem that requires some thought.
The issues just keep coming. Not a simple problem domain, and trying
to be the Borg means you have to consider *everything* ;-).
--
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
