destructor for vector

[Michiel Salters]

Re: destructor for vector

Default User <first.last@com pany.com> wrote in message news:<3F0C4293. B34DE4AF@compan y.com>...[color=blue]
> Thomas Gulbrandsen wrote:
>[color=green]
> > #include <boost\shared_p tr.hpp>[/color]
>
>
> I've searched the C++ standard, and I fail to find this header. Please
> don't recommend nonstandard, off-topic solutions.[/color]

It may not be in the standard, but that doesn't make it nonstandard.
boost/shared_ptr.hpp is a source file suited for inclusion (16.2/1)
containing standard C++ code (and certainly with a C++ interface).
Discussing and evaluating C++ code, from whatever source, is on
topic here.

Even if you're not allowed to use third-party solutions, boost can
be used to pick up some good ideas.

Regards,
--
Michiel Salters

[Alexander Terekhov]

Re: destructor for vector


Default User wrote:
[...][color=blue][color=green]
> > You didn't start this nonsense, you just happened to be
> > the latest topic-Nazi on the same day when I felt I couldn't stand it
> > any more. This could be a great newsgroup if there weren't so many
> > self appointed moderators.[/color]
>
> I'm sorry, but I can't agree with that. Newsgroup topicality is
> important. If more people thought about it before posting, then
> reminders/cluesticks/topic-fascism wouldn't be necessary. I know my good
> buddy Al will find it hard to pass up this post![/color]

You were defeated by Howard, my friend.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Chaos is Good. Moderation sucks.

P.P.S. Howard, please convey my "BOO" to Abrahams.

--

http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=3ECD0AC9.69B39C93%40web.de

(Subject: shared_ptr/weak_ptr and thread-safety)

[Default User]

Re: destructor for vector



John Harrison wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
> > For most people still, Boost represents a third-party library.[/color]
>
> But one that is easily available and widely portable. And in addition they
> seem to have the ear of the standards committee.[/color]

I'm aware of that.
[color=blue]
> I've never considered the topic of this NG to be the standard C++ language.
> It is things that are of interest to all C++ programmers. Smart pointers
> certainly qualify, and boost have a reasonable implementation.[/color]

That's obvious, but it's at odds with most other participants (except Al
of course).



Brian Rodenborn

[Default User]

Re: destructor for vector



Michiel Salters wrote:[color=blue]
>
> Default User <first.last@com pany.com> wrote in message news:<3F0C4293. B34DE4AF@compan y.com>...[color=green]
> > Thomas Gulbrandsen wrote:
> >[color=darkred]
> > > #include <boost\shared_p tr.hpp>[/color]
> >
> >
> > I've searched the C++ standard, and I fail to find this header. Please
> > don't recommend nonstandard, off-topic solutions.[/color]
>
> It may not be in the standard, but that doesn't make it nonstandard.[/color]

Yes, it does.
[color=blue]
> boost/shared_ptr.hpp is a source file suited for inclusion (16.2/1)
> containing standard C++ code (and certainly with a C++ interface).[/color]

And I'm sure it's great. I haven't used it, for the reasons I mentioned
previously. It's not standard and it's not on our approved library list,
so I can't develop with it.
[color=blue]
> Discussing and evaluating C++ code, from whatever source, is on
> topic here.[/color]

But we weren't discussing the Boost code, which would be on-topic. Boost
was recommended as a solution to a problem without qualification as to
what Boost is. Under your theory, MFC or winsock would be fine.
[color=blue]
> Even if you're not allowed to use third-party solutions, boost can
> be used to pick up some good ideas.[/color]

Wouldn't disagree with that.


My point here, which seems to escape many, is that Boost seems to get a
free pass that other widely ported third-party libraries don't. I think
that when it's recommended, at least an explanation of what it is is
needed.



Brian Rodenborn

[Default User]

Re: destructor for vector



Alexander Terekhov wrote:
[color=blue]
> You were defeated by Howard, my friend.[/color]


Oh, I think not.



Brian Rodenborn

[Alexander Terekhov]

Re: destructor for vector


Default User wrote:
[...][color=blue][color=green]
> > I've never considered the topic of this NG to be the standard C++ language.
> > It is things that are of interest to all C++ programmers. Smart pointers
> > certainly qualify, and boost have a reasonable implementation.[/color]
>
> That's obvious, but it's at odds with most other participants (except Al
> of course).[/color]

Default is correct, I'm biased. Disclosure: I'm an acknowledged
Booster (smallprint: currently "quarantine d", though) and represent
Boost.org (FOR FREE!) at The Austin Common Standards Revision Group
(technical working group established to consider the matter of a
common revision of ISO/IEC 9945-1, ISO/IEC 9945-2, IEEE Std 1003.1,
IEEE Std 1003.2 and the appropriate parts of the Single UNIX
Specification). Several of my recent DRs against POSIX were about
a boost smart pointer. Guilty.

regards,
alexander.

P.S. Default, your place is:

comp.lang.c++.d efense-or-other-critical-industries

Go away from here.