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

From: Eric Woodruff (Eric.Woodruff_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-03 23:43:12

With class B : public A, I wanted shared_ptr<B> to derive from shared_ptr<A>
in the past, with the idea that the share_ptr conversions should completely
match pointer conversions (that would include const). Nobody went for that
then, but I was wanting to throw shared_ptrs and catch them in the correct
hierarchy, which was a very isolated case, not enough to justify anything.

"David B. Held" <dheld_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:anj3mf$59o$1_at_main.gmane.org...
> "Larry Evans" <jcampbell3_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:3D9CC940.3050609_at_prodigy.net...
> > [...]
> > 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`.
>
> What would be really cool is if one could inherit from ptr<T const> const,
> but it's not allowed.  I'd still like to know if VC6 can hack it.  If not,
> I'm afraid
> it's academic (presuming we don't want to exclude the majority of the
> potential user base).  BTW, it's not my idea!  It's Oliver Schoenborn's
(or
> whosever he got it from)...just in case there was any bit of confusion
over
> that.
>
> Dave
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:
http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost
>