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

From: Greg Colvin (Gregory.Colvin_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-06-28 00:57:46

At 09:38 PM 06/27/2002, Aleksey Gurtovoy wrote:
>Greg Colvin wrote:
>> >> So you can write generic code like
>> >>
>> >>    template<template<typename T> class Ptr> struct x { Ptr<X> p; };
>> >>
>> >> and have a Ptr with raw pointer semantics.
>> >
>> >And the advantage of this over
>> >
>> >    template<class Ptr> struct x { Ptr p; };
>> >
>> >is?
>> 
>> template<template<typename T> class Ptr> struct x {
>>    Ptr<X> px;
>>    Ptr<Y> py;
>>    ...
>> };
>
>Not for the sake of the argument at all :)

Hah!

> - the above assumes that
>'template< typename T > class ptr' is _the_ de-facto standard for smart
>pointers' "signature", 

No, it simply imposes that requirement on its Ptr argument.

Anyway, we are well off topic by now.