Re: [boost] Curiousity question

Hi Edward, this interface seems to exist to ensure the lifetime of the object handed to my library, 5) is hence not the best option. I'd go with supporting both std::shared_ptr (default) and boost::shared_ptr in my library. 4) would be an interesting option for purely generic code, just modeling the interface of the shared_ptr type, but not restricting it to a concrete type seems smart. One could still have std::shared_ptr as the default for the template argument. boost::shared_ptr would be interesting as a way to support pre C++11 code. cheers, Jens Weller

Gesendet: Donnerstag, 13. Oktober 2016 um 00:58 Uhr Von: "Edward Diener" An: boost@lists.boost.org Betreff: [boost] Curiousity question

I would like to ask a design question for any Boost developers or anyone on this mailing list who might care to answer.

You are designing or working on a library, perhaps for Boost, perhaps for fun, and part of the design of the library has some public functionality taking a shared pointer as input. You:

1) Use boost::shared_ptr 2) Use std::shared_ptr 3) Use both boost::shared_ptr and std::shared_ptr with the same functionality 4) Use neither, you roll your own shared pointer-like functionality 5) You don't lke shared pointers and use raw pointers instead

I really am curious about this. I haven't put any limitation on your library or made any presumption on who your library is for, on purpose. Thanks for anyone answering !

_______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost