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

From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-09 04:19:46

"Daniel Frey" <daniel.frey_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:3DA3EE01.2F19EED0_at_aixigo.de...
> > [...]
> >   operator const ptr< const T >&() const
> >   {
> >      [Bad ugly reinterpret_cast-version snipped]
> >      [Insert your favorite static_cast-version here :)]
> >   }
> >
> I'm interested to hear whether this solves the original problem. If it
> doesn't, please let me know, as this would mean that my own
> pointer-classes might have an unsolved problem, too. :)

This doesn't really do much for me.  shared_ptr<> already has
implicit conversion to shared_ptr<T const>, and the static_cast<>
version can't avoid the creation of temporaries, so you may as well
pay for the copy.  And you still have to explicitly declare ptr<T const>
in the function declaration.  So I don't see any benefit over
shared_ptr<> here.

Dave