From: Gennadiy Rozental (gennadiy.rozental_at_[hidden])
Date: 2005-10-04 14:44:01
>> These smart_ptr/policy_ptr variations appear all the time. I've decided
>> to
>> just ignore them. People should be able to find PBSP themselves and know
>> that it's all just another policy.
>
> Is this a backhanded way of saying, "you're wasting your time
> because we'll have a PBSP soon and it will do everything?" Even
You got it.
> if we do get a PBSP sometime soon, it still needs policies to
> provide the desired behavior. Then, you need some way of
> packaging it nicely for this purpose. Otherwise, you create an
> uglier wart that's harder to use. IOW, even with a PBSP, you'd
> probably want at least a header with the policies and some
> wrapper class or typedefs to make it easier to use.
Yes. Policy implementation and convenience typedef is my choice for the
solution IMO.
Gennadiy