Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-02 06:50:35

From: "Yitzhak Sapir" <yitzhaks_at_[hidden]>

> > -----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.


Thanks, I understand now.

           David Abrahams * Boost Consulting
dave_at_[hidden] *

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at