Re: [boost] any

From: Kevlin Henney (kevlin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-09-06 10:55:35

In message <009101c0180c$6e9e0da0$070524d4_at_pdimov>, Peter Dimov
<pdimov_at_[hidden]> writes
>> Then why call it 'ref'?  Why not call it 'value'?
>
>Because a reference also acts, looks and feels like the object it refers to.
>Although 'value' is worth considering.

OTOH, a reference is an alias, whereas your class holds exclusive
ownership. We sort of need something in between: refue, valerence, ...?
;-)

>> There is some precedent in existing practice (the
>> original Great Circle smart pointer library) for
>> using an operator() that returns a reference.
>
>You mean r().f()? Is this better than r->f()? r->f() is iterator-compatible
>syntax, while r().f() is a nullary function object syntax. I'll have to
>think about it.

I would have said that using operator() for that kind of indirection is
an older rather than a current idiom. I must confess to never having
liked it that much as it just doesn't "look right" :-} Given a choice of
the two, I would take -> over ().
____________________________________________________________

  Kevlin Henney                   phone:  [phone]
  Curbralan Limited               mobile: [phone]
  mailto:kevlin_at_[hidden]     fax:    [phone]
  http://www.curbralan.com
____________________________________________________________