Greg Colvin wrote: > Which is why the original releaser<> proposal is not in the standard. > There are just too many different kinds of resource, with too many > different ways of acquiring and releasing them. So it wasn't clear > that any general facility could improve on just wrapping each resource > in a class with constructors that acquire the resource and a destructor > that releases it.
The principle advantage the releaser<>-type class is that it gives us something to attach policies to. It is difficult to apply policies in a vacuum. In fact AFAICT the only purpose of this hypothetical class is purely as a policy-holder! -- AlisdairM _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
