On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:37 PM, Jean-Philippe Barette-LaPierre <
jpbarrette_at_gmail.com> wrote:

> boost::shared_ptr should be used for pointer that different portion of the
> code has the
> ownership of that pointer, which rarely occur in cURLpp (I put a special
> attention to that).
> So, I'm not quite sure it's a good idea.

Sorry, forgot to say that mostly cURLpp should use stl::auto_ptr

>
>
> Anyway, even if it's gonna be included eventually in the standard, which I
> don't think it's the
> case. Adding boost as a *requirement*, instead of an optional dependency
> isn't a good
> idea if it's not *absolutely* necessary. I know it's now included almost in
> all platforms,
> but some of cURLpp users are using this library on embedded systems, for
> which it's
> not always true that they have boost.
>
> Again, I might not see the whole picture. If you can give an example where
> it would be necessary,
> I would reconsider using it.
>
>
> On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 12:13 PM, Piotr Dobrogost <curlpp_at_2008.autoera.pl>wrote:
>
>> Hi
>>
>> As I'm planning to change interface of curlpp to one with smart
>> pointers I'd like to know your opinion on what smart pointer should
>> be used?
>>
>> I think Boost shared_ptr would be the best as it's robust, well
>> known and the last but not the least it's going to be in the Standard.
>>
>> Regards
>> Piotr Dobrogost
>> _______________________________________________
>> cURLpp mailing list
>> cURLpp_at_rrette.com
>> http://www.rrette.com/mailman/listinfo/curlpp
>>
>
>

_______________________________________________
cURLpp mailing list
cURLpp_at_rrette.com
http://www.rrette.com/mailman/listinfo/curlpp
Received on 2008-11-03