-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On Thursday 20 March 2008 11:25 am, Peter Dimov wrote:
It's better to omit the owned() accessor unless/until we have a use case for it.
Ok
As a minor stylistic issue, I'd prefer !expired() instead of expired() == false.
Ok
You might want to add tests for ownership sharing, !( early_px < px ) && !( px < early_px ).
Ah, yes. That's what I was trying to get at with some of the use count checking, but didn't realize there was a better way.
One final question, in:
BOOST_TEST( early_px.use_count() > 0 );
what does use_count() return? 2? Do we want to test against 2 directly, or are we to leave the initial use count unspecified?
Yes, it returns 2. We can test for equality if you prefer. I just left it unspecified because I felt like the 2 was just an implementation detail leaking out.
Do you have SVN write access?
Yes, just tell me what/when is ok to commit and I should be able to do it. - -- Frank -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFH4ogv5vihyNWuA4URAnYIAJ4gcWMlrZHW0Km2Z8+uMXsMJr5MlACgpZJt QQcApintW/tFGUyWRGLuIVo= =+oLw -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----