No, thats a twisted interpretation. I'm just pointing out, there is a need for shared ownership. I am not discouraging any other approaches, because - as you state- there are multiple use cases. Besides that, I would be pleased to review the mentioned approach. Best regards, ILo. From: David Abrahams <dave@boostpro.com> To: boost@lists.boost.org Date: 27.05.2010 20:43 Subject: Re: [boost] Review of a safer memory management approach for C++? Sent by: boost-bounces@lists.boost.org At Thu, 27 May 2010 20:02:45 +0200, Ingo Loehken wrote:
if I understand "hard to reason about" in the right why : like there is no need for shared ownership at all, this also means that there is no use for COM Programming - and of course there is.
I think you don't understand it the right way. Shared ownership (at least in the presence of mutation) is hard to reason about because seemingly-local modifications can have non-local effects. Furthermore, your logic seems flawed to me. By analogy: There is no need for Intel processors (we can all use AMD). Therefore there is no use for an Intel processor? -- Dave Abrahams Meet me at BoostCon: http://www.boostcon.com BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com _______________________________________________ Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost