destructor for vector

[Default User]

You were defeated by Howard, my friend.

Oh, I think not.



Brian Rodenborn

 

[Default User]

It may not be in the standard, but that doesn't make it nonstandard.

Yes, it does.

boost/shared_ptr.hpp is a source file suited for inclusion (16.2/1)
containing standard C++ code (and certainly with a C++ interface).

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.

Discussing and evaluating C++ code, from whatever source, is on
topic here.

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.

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

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

 

[Alexander Terekhov]

Default User wrote:
[...]

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

Default is correct, I'm biased. Disclosure: I'm an acknowledged
Booster (smallprint: currently "quarantined", 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++.defense-or-other-critical-industries

Go away from here.