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

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-27 05:19:15

From: "David Abrahams" <david.abrahams_at_[hidden]>
> From: "Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]>
>
> > What is wrong with 'get_pointer'?
>
> Also a good question. The only argument I would make against "get_pointer"
> is that shared_ptr<T> already is a (kind of) pointer, depending on your
> definition. I realize a smart pointer is not a pointer, but since that's a
> little confusing, raw_pointer makes it a little more explicit.

I'd be very reluctant to drop the get_ prefix. As we all know, unqualified
functions can clash with all kinds of identifiers, and 'raw_pointer' being a
noun is a class name (without context.) get_raw_pointer, perhaps.

>From mem_fn's point of view, get_pointer is not restricted to return a raw
pointer, though.