From: Howard Hinnant (hinnant_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-04-26 19:30:19
On Apr 26, 2004, at 7:15 PM, Peter Dimov wrote:
> Let's go a bit further.
> The obvious alternative to shared_ptr here, to me, is not a
> non-synchronized
> shared_ptr, but an embedded reference count (no need for separate count
> synchronization -> no need for separate count). Is there something
> else that
> I'm missing that makes intrusive counting unsuitable?
Probably not. The DLL-proof characteristic of shared_ptr appealed to
me so I jumped to reuse it. There's always another rewrite waiting in
the wings. :-) Thanks for your comments.
-Howard