RE: [boost] Re: [smart_ptr] const-correctness as function argumen t

From: Schoenborn, Oliver (Oliver.Schoenborn_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-05 06:22:58

> From: Dave Abrahams
> > From: "Larry Evans" <jcampbell3_at_[hidden]>
> > 
> > >David B. Held wrote:
> > >
> > > >Deriving from ptr<T const> is a weird beast.  For instance, if you
declare
> > > >T* p_; in ptr<T const>, for some reason, it is not visible in ptr<T>,
> > >
> > >I'm totally surprised!
> 
> It's a dependent base class. A conforming compiler will only 
> find it with qualification, e.g.
> 
>     this->p_

I'm totally surprised too. This means that gcc 2.96, 3.2, and SGI's MipsPro
CC are non standard in this regard, which is possible I guess. That said, I
still don't see why the code that Dave Held wrote would require this->p_
(how is ptr<T const> a dependent base class?). 

Oliver