-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Friday 17 July 2009, Gottlob Frege wrote:
That is somewhat my point - the topic keeps coming up, so maybe we should finally do it.
There was the policy_ptr proposal for boost, which I assume is still in the sandbox. I even found it listed on some old web copies of the boost review queue pages, I'm not sure what ultimately happened.
(Or maybe we need a FAQ saying "don't go there".)
I don't want to tell other people they shouldn't work on it, but my personal opinion is that designing the ultimate policy based smart pointer that is everything to everyone is a tar pit (which I'm going to avoid).
In 2002 there seemed to be lots of policy design discussion. It would be interesting to know if we've learned anything over the years.
Well, in 2001 we got Loki::SmartPtr. In the next couple years we had a bunch of design debate in boost over a boostified version. Now we're in 2009, and somehow shared_ptr is still king. What I take from that is that there is a place for exploring other approaches to generalizing smart pointers, such as the nested matryoshka doll approach I'm playing with in generic_shared. And also that I want people who think I should just add a policy template parameter or two, and giving them default values will solve everything, to leave me alone :) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux) iEYEARECAAYFAkpgcyoACgkQ5vihyNWuA4XI8gCfTxh9xUUz/t9DJM6c43rrqUso LWoAn0yZqFat2msQ188hqWHIQwj/XmsJ =NwTK -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----