From: Andrei Alexandrescu (andrewalex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-04 03:35:06
"Beman Dawes" <bdawes_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:4.3.2.7.2.20030203161312.023801a0_at_mailhost.esva.net...
> * Should a PBSP supply policies that are prone to be used unsafely?
>
> I'd say "no" is an acceptable answer, at least for something like the T*
> conversion in widely used libraries like the Standard Library and Boost.
>
> * Should a PBSP allow user supplied policies to modify interface, perhaps
> in ways that may be unsafe or even just unfortunate?
>
> That's tougher. At some point I lose interest in a PBSP if it prevents me
> from doing the things I want to do, even if I only want to do them in the
> privacy of my own code.
The original SmartPtr design leaves the onus of choosing the right policy
combination to the application designer. To me, that's a design I find
reasonable and in keep with the spirit of C++. Safer designs are possible
that reject policy combinations that "don't go together" at the price of
being more complicated or less efficient or less flexible.
Andrei