From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-01-31 07:27:03
"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes:
> In short, trying to support auto_ptr, shared_ptr, and weak_ptr will either
> destroy the design, or make it stronger. :-)
Didn't we decide weak_ptr isn't a _ptr after all? If so, doesn't that
get Dave off the hook for trying to support it using the smart_ptr
facade?
--
David Abrahams
dave_at_[hidden] * http://www.boost-consulting.com
Boost support, enhancements, training, and commercial distribution