From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2000-09-07 06:23:58
> Is it important that ref<T> be an iterator over one object?
No. And it's not important that ref<T> be a function object either.
> What I don't like about the operator-> and operator* for
> this sort of thing is that it is not a pointer, in the
> sense that copying a pointer does not create a copy of the
> object pointed to.
Yes, I don't like this either.
> Without an operator. we do what we
> must, and I find operator() less distasteful.
Like "intuitive", "taste" cannot be defined and leads to never-ending
I'll try to think of a technical reason for or against op-> vs. op(). If
there is none, we can argue over "tastefulness" at great length. :)
-- Peter Dimov Multi Media Ltd.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk