"Iain K. Hanson" <iain.hanson@videonetworks.com> wrote in message news:1114524401.14534.421.camel@dev-ihanson.ct.uk.videonetworks.com...
On Mon, 2005-04-25 at 21:10 -0400, Beman Dawes wrote:
"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto@cs.auc.dk> wrote in message news:d4gi2c$2jd$1@sea.gmane.org...
In Lillehammer we rejected a policy-based smart pointer...
That isn't what happened. The committee's wiki describes the LWG's position:
"No support for a policy-based framework at this time. This is a refinement of Loki, but, while Loki is in use, this refinement isn't. We'll consider such a proposal later, if there is widespread practice and strong arguments for it."
Is the requirement for a library to be in "widespread" use general for all libraries or specific to policy_ptr because the TR1 already has smart_ptr?
It isn't specific to shared_ptr. Every proposal is evaluated on it's own merits, but lots of LWG regulars look for "existing practice". How widespread that has to be is up to the judgement of individual members. In the case of the STL, the LWG (and full committee) were willing to accept the lack of widespread existing practice because the perceived advantages seemed so great. --Beman