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

From: Larry Evans (jcampbell3_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-03 17:48:32

David B. Held wrote:
[snip]

>template <typename T>
>class ptr;
>
>template <typename T>
>class ptr<T const>
>{
>public:
>  ptr() { }
>  T const* operator->() const { return p_; }
>private:
>  ptr(ptr const&);
>  T* p_;
>};
>
>template <typename T>
>class ptr : public ptr<T const>
>{
>  
>
[snip]

>and thereby modify p.  However, this is true in general, and I don't think
>it presents a significant risk.  This is an interesting idiom, and I would
>like to hear other people's comments on it.  Not worth the complexity?
>Hidden problems/risks?
>
>  
>
I think its close to perfect if not perfect!  This is better than
Meyer's solution.  Maybe Meyers didn't have
a compiler that could specialize on `const T` and `T`.