On Saturday 12 April 2008 14:37, Peter Dimov wrote:
I leave the decision (and the actual revert, should you elect to proceed) to you. It might be better to wait for a test cycle first. I'll also appreciate if you try sp_accept_owner for your existing use cases that motivated the enhanced esft base and, if possible, distill their essence into a test case that will replace (or complement) esft_constructor_test.
Ok. My use case is similar to the classic esft case, where a weak_ptr is stored when ownership is taken. To be specific, I want to store some weak_ptrs to this for use in tracking signal/slot connections where a class connects signals to its member functions during its initialization. How about making the default implementation of the 3 argument sp_accept_owner call the 2 argument overload? Then the 3 argument version can be ignored if the user doesn't care about the deleter. -- Frank