Re: [boost] On ownership policies and boost::raw_ptr

From: Greg Colvin (greg_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-26 13:43:03

At 11:00 AM 06/26/2002, you wrote:

>From: "Greg Colvin" <greg_at_[hidden]>
>
>> >I think 'c_ptr' would be a very good choice.
>> 
>> And I still like &*p better than p.get() or mumble_ptr(p).
>
>Causes undefined behavior if p is a null pointer, though. :(

Doesn't seem like it should have to, but no such luck.

Of course lots of code using pointers expects never to
encounter a null pointer anyway, and I'd expect to see
code that tests for null-ness to use p directly before
the conversion to a raw pointer.  But I don't know what
the use cases are for mumble_ptr.

I've been traveling and am jumping in late, so mabye
this went by already, but I could see the point in
defining raw_ptr<T> as a wrapper class for a raw
pointer which, unlike shared_ptr and all, has a
conversion to T*.