From: Milutin Jovanovic (miki_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-05-30 18:25:35
----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Baxter" <paul_baxter_at_[hidden]>
> While I certainly agree with KISS, I find the idea of having a few aspects
> of a smart pointer's behaviour that can be [independently] juggled to be
> more appealing than say 15 - 20 possible common smart pointer specialisms
Hmm, I have never faced the need for 15, let alone 20 different smart
pointers. If the number is this high in some projects, then I agree, the
appeal of separate implementations fades rather quickly.
Miki.