From: Iain K.Hanson (iain.hanson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-12 06:20:57
> [mailto:boost-bounces_at_[hidden]]On Behalf Of Iain K.Hanson
> Sent: 12 December 2002 10:15
> To: 'Boost mailing list'
> Subject: RE: [boost] Formal review: Optional library
> assert( a == b ) // pointer semantics.
> if this used value semantics then this would mostly fail and randomly
Whoops - brain fade. Yhis would also be true of pointer semantics.
Maybe this argues Fernando's point that they should not be defined.
However, given that we already have dereference, it would be nice to
have the syntacic sugar I described in my previous post.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, david.abrahams at rcn.com, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk