Referencecounted object vs. referencecounted handles

[Steven T. Hatton]

It looks as if boost::intrusive_ptr<> didn't make the cut for C++0X.
http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2005/n1745.pdf

I guess I should take this as an indication that C++ programmers favor
referencecounted handles over reference counted objects.

This was an interesting read, and seems to propose the kind of complete
solution I was looking for. I don't know if it would be worth the trouble,
however:

http://www.open-std.org/jtc1/sc22/wg21/docs/papers/2004/n1671.pdf

Has anybody else used the Boost Smart Pointers, and care to share opinions
or observations on this topic?

 

[Pete Becker]

It looks as if boost::intrusive_ptr<> didn't make the cut for C++0X.

boost::intrusive_ptr hasn't been proposed, neither for TR1 nor for C++0x.

http://www.open-std.org/JTC1/SC22/WG21/docs/papers/2005/n1745.pdf

That's TR1.

 

[Steven T. Hatton]

boost::intrusive_ptr hasn't been proposed, neither for TR1 nor for C++0x.

I assumed that everything in the boost smart pointer library was a potential
candidate for inclusion in the standard.

That's TR1.

That's what the document says. It also says the items described therein had
potential for inclusion in the standard. I merely assumed that if
boost:instrusive_ptr<> wasn't there, it was unlikely to be included in
C++0X.

 

[Pete Becker]

That's what the document says.

Funny how that works.

It also says the items described therein had
potential for inclusion in the standard. I merely assumed that if
boost:instrusive_ptr<> wasn't there, it was unlikely to be included in
C++0X.

Bad assumption.

 

[Panjandrum]

boost::intrusive_ptr hasn't been proposed, neither for TR1 nor for C++0x.

Sometimes there is even good news from the Standards committee.

 

[Steven T. Hatton]

Sometimes there is even good news from the Standards committee.

Why do you say that? Thus far, I haven't seen anybody provide any
substantive comment on the use of boost::intrusive_ptr<>.