From: David Abrahams (david.abrahams_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-26 14:42:11
From: "Greg Colvin" <greg_at_[hidden]>
> 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.
There should be a uniform way to get the raw pointer for any smart pointer,
even if it's null.
> 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*.
I don't see the advantage over having raw_ptr be a function template which
returns a T*. At least then the user doesn't have to explicitly specify the
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk