🚀 go-pugleaf

> ==========Steve Clamage, 1/17/96==========

[stuff deleted]
 
> That is, single ownership is a deliberate design decision based on the
> semantics an auto-ptr should have. It is not an implementation issue.
 
> Unless someone can present new evidence that shows the
arguments in favor
> of single ownership are wrong, and in addition shows that multiple
> ownership is always better, this subject won't be reopened in
> the committee.
 
> (Yes, examples are known where multiple ownership does what you want.
> That doesn't mean it is overall the best design. And nothing prevents
> you from writing your own multiple-owner class.)

I do not see where either approach is always better.  Why is
one way given an easier time of it than the other?  I think
both semantics have real value and need to be part of the
standard arsenal to be used.  Having both major techniques
available (instead of making it a contest that throws out one
valuable technique) is the more desirable solution from the
customer view [even if it would work you guys to the bone].
That also seems more in the C++ style and philosophy.

Good Day
Dick
Dick.Menninger@DaytonOH.ATTGIS.COM
---
[ comp.std.c++ is moderated.  Submission address: std-c++@ncar.ucar.edu.
  Contact address: std-c++-request@ncar.ucar.edu.  The moderation policy
  is summarized in http://dogbert.lbl.gov/~matt/std-c++/policy.html. ]