From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-07-30 17:09:28
"Philippe A. Bouchard" <philippeb_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Well we could restrict assignments from whom offsets differ only. Here
> is a clumsy compile-time assertion example (I'm sure someone else can
> build one more cleanly):
I have a name for your pointer: hack_ptr<>. ;)
P.S. Seriously, do you notice how you are constantly pressured into
making hacks so that your pointer behaves like most smart pointers?
Does that bother you at all? Soon, your header will be a laundry list
of reinterpret_cast<>s sprinkled with a few pointer operations. ;) And
notice that your "solution" doesn't restore missing functionality. Rather
it enforces the lack of functionality. Many people might question the
utility of a non-polymorphic pointer.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk