From: Darin Adler (darin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-02-12 15:17:42
On 2/12/02 12:04 PM, "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> I don't mind removing the boolean weak_ptr queries and/or operator->, if
> that's proves a popular opinion. They are there mostly because having used
> shared_ptr, users will expect to find them in weak_ptr, too. Explaining why
> operator* isn't there is easy: it isn't thread safe, but the others are.
I think having fewer operations helps make the purpose of weak pointer
clearer. If the only thing you can do is turn one back into a strong
pointer, it becomes difficult to misuse one, and more clear what they are
for. And if a check for 0 is helpful for efficiency, we can try to choose a
name that makes it clear that false negatives are possible but false
positives are not, rather than leaving it unnamed, easy to invoke by
accident, and perhaps overpromising.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk