On Saturday 11 April 2009 15:40:11 Lukasz Stafiniak wrote:
> 2009/4/11 Jon Harrop <jon@ffconsultancy.com>:
> > On Saturday 11 April 2009 15:11:38 Lukasz Stafiniak wrote:
> >> (Another question which is off-topic for this list is whether smart
> >> pointers in their situation would be a high performance hit.)
> >
> > Depends what "their situation" is. :-)
>
> General performance is very important for them... They plan to use
> weak_ptr most of the time.

Ok. My advice is to avoid shared pointers if at all possible and rely on a 
robust GC implementation like OCaml's. GC is vastly more efficient and vastly 
less error prone.

I concur with Basile that a loose binding is preferable to a tight binding 
when you have more than one form of deallocation. Message passing is 
generally the easiest solution.

-- 
Dr Jon Harrop, Flying Frog Consultancy Ltd.
http://www.ffconsultancy.com/?e