Re: shared_ptr from dinkumware ... comments??
Al ha scritto:
hi all
i've been reading Pete Becker's book regarding the TR1 extensions. its
excellent.
but i really just need (at the moment) the SHARED_PTR stuff.
is it worth getting dinkumware or is Boots's PTR good enough (tested,
performance, standard, etc etc).
the money's not the issue so i'll probably go with dinkum ... but just
curious about the Boost quality.
According to the version history present on the Boost site, the smart
pointer library was already present in version 1.11.2 (that's the oldest
revision still documented on the site). That version was released about
seven years ago. Since then Boost has seen 21 major releases. Frankly,
it's hard for me to believe that the Boost implementation is not
thoroughly tested.
In fact, the TR1 proposal for shared_ptr was originated from Boost
itself, therefore I expect Boost implementation to be very consistent
with TR1. In case something has changed after the proposal, it's quite
probable that any difference will be removed in future releases of
Boost. Remember that until it has been voted and approved, even TR1 is
subjected to possible changes!
I don't know the Dinkumware implementation so I can't speak about it.
About performances, as usual the one and only answer is: profile and see
for yourself.
Ganesh
--
[ See http://www.gotw.ca/resources/clcm.htm for info about ]
[ comp.lang.c++.moderated. First time posters: Do this! ]