Subject: Re: [boost] [smart_ptr] shared_ptr template type
From: John Bytheway (jbytheway+boost_at_[hidden])
Date: 2009-07-14 17:42:21
Zachary Turner wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 14, 2009 at 1:40 PM, Frank Mori Hess<frank.hess_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> So, before I spend any more time on it, is this something worth pursuing
>> further as far as boost goes? Does it stand any chance of making it into the
>> smart_ptr library? Is there a silent majority out there who thinks this is a
>> worthwhile idea, or is it just me? I might even settle for a vocal
>> minority :)
>
> I would use the heck out of something like this. However I was
> disappointed to see in the comments that the null_value member was
> replaced by a search for a free function lookup. If traits are going
> to be supported at all, I think they should be supported first-class,
> and allow one to just parameterize the class with a traits class to
> begin with.
<snip>
It's interesting you should say that, because I have had exactly the
reverse experience. I find free function overloads much superior to
traits classes for simple things like this. For example, I think
boost::hash is better than std::hash because it uses a free function and
ADL to find the hashes of my classes. The main advantage is the
possibility of using enable_if which allows one function overload to
apply to many classes. Can you be more explicit about the problems you
have had?
John Bytheway