From: Hartmut Kaiser (hartmutkaiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-13 05:43:56
Joel de Guzman wrote:
> Another solution that I seem to like would be to simply revert to
> v1.3 behavior while still using smart pointers. Then, an auxilliary
> class rule_holder<RuleT> can be used to hold rules for storage
> in containers. The rule_holder manages the lifetime of the held
> rule. You can get, set or reset the held rule.
Is it really only a matter of inclsion of rule<>'s into some container?
I'm not completly sure. If yes, your 2nd suggestion is the better one,
because it's less intrusive and because it don't add features to the
rule<>'s template, which aren't used very often. But if there are other
situations, where copy sematics are required, the first suggestion may
be preferable.
Regards Hartmut