10 Feb
2004
10 Feb
'04
5:32 p.m.
On Tue, 10 Feb 2004 11:10:22 -0600 Slawomir Lisznianski <slisznianski@asyncnet.com> wrote:
Do we sacrifice platforms that do not support atomic instructions then? ;-) I was faintly aiming to show a bigger picture, hence my proposal for locking policy. IMHO, overriding operator= is a valuable alternative, but puts an ado on users.
I agree that a template parameter describing the locking policy is a much better solution. It provides all users of shared_ptr with what they want, and it does not cost anything for the times when a lock is not desired. -- Jody Hagins Consultant, n.: An ordinary man a long way from home.