From: Miki Jovanovic (miki_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-03-06 15:03:35
"gavin collings" <gcolling-_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> Since the interfaces will be as identical as possible, naming by
> implementation probably makes more sense. Change shared_ptr to
> counted_ptr?
Well, if we can get interfaces to match, then we could do something
like:
#if defined( _LINKED_IMPL_ )
template<class T> shared_ptr : public linked_ptr<T> {};
#elif defined ( _COUNTED_IMPL_ )
template<class T> shared_ptr : public counted_ptr<T> {};
#else
// default implementation; something we chose...
...
#endif
This way, with a simple configuration define, you can change your smart
pointer implementation globally.
Cheers,
Miki.