Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2001-09-03 08:36:01

----- Original Message -----
From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>

> Leading C++ experts can't agree on a common informal definition of the
> "smart pointer" (the best they can think of is "anything that redefines *
> and ->") and you think that we can devise a Pointer Concept? ;-)

Joking aside, sure we can. We have an Iterator Concept family even though we
know that excludes some things we'd like to call iterators (e.g. iterators
with proxy references). It is, nonetheless, very useful, and could be
expanded. We could do the same thing for smart pointers.

> Although my point was more along the lines that even given a policy-based
> smart pointer, your particular case would most probably still call for an
> old school, hand written implementation.

I don't see why. Why do you say that?


Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at