From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-18 12:20:03
From: "David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]>
> "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:008a01c1e6e7$f46f4010$1d00a8c0_at_pdimov2...
> > [...]
> > IMO, there is no "standard" intrusive pointer. The variations are (at
> > least):
> >
> > * type of count: public variable, accessor functions, base class;
> > * name of count/accessors (addref, AddRef, addRef, attach);
> > * initial value of the reference count (zero or one.)
> > * delete in the pointer or self-delete in release.
>
> Do you think Loki::SmartPtr's policy approach can (or should) handle
> these variations well, or would you recommend a different approach?
Yes, a policy-based design is, IMO, the right approach. I personally
consider Loki::SmartPtr a bit overdesigned (Storage + Ownership should be
rolled into one policy) but it works, i.e. covers the above feature space
AFAIK.