On 10/09/2012 12:31 AM, Peter wrote: > > On Oct 8, 2012, at 5:17 PM, Andrew Haley <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> On 10/06/2012 11:59 AM, _ wrote: >>> Not that I think that STL/Boost are not great solutions for many >>> problems out there. >>> But the fact is that there is and always will be c/c++ code that can't >>> and will not use it. >> >> But surely the set of people refusing to use C++ smart pointers is the >> same set that will refuse to use your -fsmart-pointers. > > It all boils down whether they are othodox or just simply > pragmatic. I am optimist and belive in second :)
Me too, but there's nothing more pragmatic about adding -fsmart-pointers to gcc when we already have smart pointers in C++. >>> C or C like templateless C++ code is still domain of most os / >>> drivers source code out there. >>> Just go agead and try to ask Linus to wrap all pointers to stl >>> templates ;D >> >> And he'd have the same response to -fsmart-pointers. Face it, the >> only real differences a compiler builtin would bring are: >> >> 1. A fossilized "smart pointer type". >> 2. A different declaration syntax. > > Now imagine you have 300 developers with varying experience or > ability to work under pressure. I don't have to imagine that. But of course you have to do the cleanup anyway because it is unlikely that in a large application it is appropriate to replace *every* use of a pointer with a smart pointer: some you do, some you don't. Andrew.
