From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-31 07:24:30
From: "David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]>
> "David Abrahams" <dave_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:uel6ucf6w.fsf_at_boost-consulting.com...
> > That is a very clean approach, and assuming it's OK to keep the
> > the sole copy of p in storage_policy, even efficient.
>
> I'm not sure anyone would use a pointer that kept multiple copies of
> p. Wouldn't that make it pretty fat?
shared_ptr keeps a copy of p in the "ownership policy" (the count
structure.) Its "storage policy" (px) doesn't own the pointer. But I may be
misunderstanding the context.