[boost] Re: [smart_ptr] const-correctness as function argument

From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-02 13:19:27

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:007501c26a0d$f94c6e10$1d00a8c0_at_pdimov2...
> [...]
> We went over this a few times here and on comp.lang.c++.moderated.

The posts I found in the archives more or less said: "If you want a pointer-
to-const, use ptr<T const>".  I didn't really see anything justifying the
position.  I didn't look at c.l.c.m., though.

> [...]
> shared_ptr is "as close to raw pointers as possible but no closer".

Well, I'm actually suggesting something that raw pointers *don't* do,
because raw pointer syntax happens to be more convenient.  I understand
the motivation for the status quo, however.

> The genericity argument - add_const_to_element - is new, however. Do
> people really need such a primitive? Any motivating examples taken from
> real world code, preferably with identifier names intact, no Widgets and
> Foos?

Hey, where would the world be without Widgets and Foos? ;)  Anyway,
I personally don't like the wrapper, for the reasons I stated originally:
it's even less convenient than just specifying ptr<T const> and you still
have
to copy the pointer.  It seems to me that it gets you nothing but increased
verbosity.

Dave