From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-01-11 12:07:21
----- Original Message -----
From: "Andrei Alexandrescu" <andrewalex_at_[hidden]>
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2002 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [boost] Loki SmartPtr study: Policy orthogonality issues
> > I don't understand what you're saying. This sounds like an argument for
> > functional programming in general (all data is const) ???
> > Doesn't the shared_array as owning iterator make sense to you?
> The idea is that shared_array points to the beginning of an array
> with new.
Clearly, that's not the idea if you want to allow pointer arithmetic on it.
> Then, you don't want to alter it because the restructor will call
> delete on the pointee object, which must be there.
yes, the pointer to the base of the array must be available somewhere. Peter
is storing it in the count object.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk