From: Greg Colvin (Gregory.Colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-28 00:57:46
At 09:38 PM 06/27/2002, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
>Greg Colvin wrote:
>> >> So you can write generic code like
>> >>
>> >> template<template<typename T> class Ptr> struct x { Ptr<X> p; };
>> >>
>> >> and have a Ptr with raw pointer semantics.
>> >
>> >And the advantage of this over
>> >
>> > template<class Ptr> struct x { Ptr p; };
>> >
>> >is?
>>
>> template<template<typename T> class Ptr> struct x {
>> Ptr<X> px;
>> Ptr<Y> py;
>> ...
>> };
>
>Not for the sake of the argument at all :)
Hah!
> - the above assumes that
>'template< typename T > class ptr' is _the_ de-facto standard for smart
>pointers' "signature",
No, it simply imposes that requirement on its Ptr argument.
Anyway, we are well off topic by now.