From: Andrei Alexandrescu (andrewalex_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-04-19 19:46:41
"Fernando Cacciola" <fcacciola_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:a9q7ok$se9$1_at_main.gmane.org...
[snip]
> We actually have just one disagreement: I think that having a bounded set
of
> single-parameter template classes with fixed template-ids is the right
> choice as a general purpose smart pointer facility because it sets a
> *uniform* idiom for dealing with the general problem of keeping objects
> alive as needed.
> All my arguments are based on this statement. Were this be wrong, then
IMO,
> you would be entirely right.
Sounds cool. As far as I'm concerned, we ended up in agreement.
Alas, the real world kicks in. Unfortunately, there is just a ton of
syntactic scaffolding that should be built right into the smart pointer, and
that will end up being duplicated if distinct classes are to be written.
I guess the best common denominator, and one that will make both of us
entirely happy, is typedef templates.
Andrei