Beman Dawes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> At 09:46 PM 2/2/2003, Howard Hinnant wrote:
>
> To me, a major benefit of a policy based design is to
> be able to accommodate a wide range of features,
> including those which find only limited use.
>
> If a policy based smart pointer can't accommodate a
> wide range of features, I start to wonder if the design
> itself is inflexible and flawed. That's why I worry a
> lot about whether a given PBSP design can handle
> apparently marginal uses.
There's no reason we have to be restricted to a single idiom AFAICT.
The GenVoca-style design we're using for the new iterator_adaptors is
great for adding new interface in the most-derived class. A blend of
techniques is often more effective than trying to cram everything into
a single approach. If you want a smart_ptr with implicit conversion,
one way might be:
template <class T>
struct legacy_ptr
: smart_ptr<blah, blah, blah...>
{
legacy_ptr(T* p) : smart_ptr<blah...>(p) {}
T* operator()() const { return this->get(); }
};
-Ddave
--
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
