On Mon, 13 Oct 2003 01:55:58 +0200 (Romance Daylight Time) Vadim Zeitlin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I think that I would > have used boost classes but as you're working on this I prefer leaving the > choice to you. Well, I originally wanted some macros because IMHO they are much better for this job than templates. I am using templates only to make forward declarations easier to write. Note that this won't work with pure templates. I think the main advantage of boost classes is standard naming. Our code would be more readable if we used them. But IMHO the price of technical disadvantages is not acceptable. We can always typedef RefCounter to shared_ptr or other type later, if they make it better. > shared_ptr<> may be used for intrusive ref counting too. Am I misunderstanding something? The only mention of intrusive ref counting says that it has been dropped. > I still don't know what is there to optimize and, to be honest, I'd be > surprized if we could beat the boost version... Here they themselves say that intrusive ref counting is faster: http://www.boost.org/libs/smart_ptr/smarttests.htm Every pointer is two times smaller (one raw pointer instead of two). We will have weak intrusively counted pointers. That's not part of boost library. > Looking at the test matrix at boost.org, VC6 does support these classes... I am talking about optimizations. Templates don't have to be instantiated for every type, but compilers won't realize it. ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: SF.net Giveback Program. SourceForge.net hosts over 70,000 Open Source Projects. See the people who have HELPED US provide better services: Click here: http://sourceforge.net/supporters.php _______________________________________________ Mahogany-Developers mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/mahogany-developers
