From: Yitzhak Sapir (yitzhaks_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-02 08:04:14
> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Abrahams [mailto:dave_at_[hidden]]
> Why is everyone barking up this tree instead of using
> shared_ptr<T const>
> "as god intended"?
I don't have a problem with shared_ptr as it is, (and in my post, I covered reasons for leaving shared_ptr's as they are -- I don't support the viewpoint that shared_ptr should have two ->/* functions). But I use scoped_ptr's to hold the pointers to a private implementation struct. When I do this, I don't want to have non-const access to the struct in const functions. Having a scoped_ptr<T const> won't help me in this regard because I do want non-const access in non-const functions.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk