Thorsten Froehlich <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:
> (Rhetoric question) Don't you think it is time to quit this thread?

  Btw, can I ask you a non-rhetorical question?

  Why are there so many questions in this thread which I have asked and
which have got no answers whatsoever? These are *practical* questions
related to solving the problem at hand.

  - You claimed that using fully qualified names "seriously deteriorates
maintainability", which is why it's a bad idea to do that. I asked you
exactly how. I got no answer.

  - Edouard suggested that rather than changing the 'shared_ptr' references
in the code, instead the "using namespace" statements should be changed
"to intelligently chose (based on compiler and version) whether a particular
compilation of POV uses the version in std or the version in boost". When
I asked exactly how this would be done without breaking any of the other
unqualified names in the code, I got no answer.

  - Someone suggested a precompiler macro specific to VC++ 2010 to make it
not include 'std::shared_ptr'. When I asked what will be done when other
compilers start implementing 'std::shared_ptr', potentially repeating the
current problem at hand, I got no answer.

  - It was suggested that some newer boost TR1 implementation of shared_ptr
should be used as some kind of solution to the current problem. You agreed
that it would be a good idea. When I asked exactly how this would be done
in such a way that it would solve the problem at hand, I got no answer.

  - Most importantly, when I asked the question: What exactly would be the
problem in using 'boost::shared_ptr' (perhaps abstracted away with a typedef)
instead of 'shared_ptr', which would nicely solve the problem at hand in a
portable way and without having to resort to compiler-dependent trickery,
I got no answer.

  Can you answer me even that last question, if not the others? I honestly
cannot see the problem in using 'boost::shared_ptr' explicitly. It would
just solve the current problem, would not depend on any compiler-specific
settings, and would be a clean and easy solution. So what exactly *is* the
problem?

  Is that too much to ask? I'm asking completely honestly here.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message