RE: [boost] Re: Interest in smart pointer with value semantics?

From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-03 21:07:55

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:

>Not quite. I don't want it to return a const  T* unconditionally.
>In the current situations, people in favor of non-const correct programs
>get what they want. I'm left with two scenarios

>1) writing a new wrapper around existing smart pointers
>2) in generic code, const T* and const smart_ptr<T> are not equal and I 
>will
>need traits to deal with different syntax

Surely const T * p/T const * p is the counterpart to smart_ptr< const T 
 >/smart_ptr< T const > since in all these cases, the const applies to T. 
Likewise, T * const is the counterpart to const smart_ptr< T >.

Regards,
Reece

_________________________________________________________________
Send a funky Messenger Christmas card http://www.msn.co.uk/christmascard