In article <3ea97743@news.povray.org>,
 "Thorsten Froehlich" <tho### [at] trfde> wrote:

> No, you missed something important, probably because you over-read it in the
> description of shared_ptr: There is a stable working implementation the
> proposal is based on.  It is *not* some nice theoretical idea nobody ever
> bothered to implement.  Just go and get it at boost.org...

I haven't read any descriptions of shared_ptr. As far as I can tell, it 
is not part of the current standard. I am well aware of the existance of 
good implementations...if one of those is available with an open enough 
license, I see no reason to avoid using it rather than writing a custom 
version. But it isn't part of the current standard, and if/when it is 
standardized, it will take some time to be widely implemented. None of 
this is a good reason for waiting for it to become standardized and 
widely implemented...if anything, it is a reason not to do so.

-- 
Christopher James Huff <cja### [at] earthlinknet>
http://home.earthlink.net/~cjameshuff/
POV-Ray TAG: chr### [at] tagpovrayorg
http://tag.povray.org/

Post a reply to this message