Hello David, thanks for your review! David Sankel ha escrito: [...]
My preference on the equality mechanism would be to make it a configuration option via a template parameter during construction with the default being (fw1.get()==fw1.get()) instead of (&(fw1.get())==&(fw1.get()). The benefit would be that those who would understand when this would fail could enable the quicker behavior while those who don't understand could remain in blissful ignorance.
Is it really necessary to provide a template parameter to control that? After all, if flyweight<...> provided (fw1.get()==fw1.get()) semantics, it's trivial to override this on a per case basis: typedef flyweight<whatever,...> fw_t; inline bool operator==(const fw_t& x,const fw_t& y) { return &x.get()==&y.get(); } Not sure if this deserves a config parameter of its own... Joaquín M López Muñoz Telefónica, Investigación y Desarrollo