From: Dirk Gerrits (dirk_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-12-09 16:14:05
Fernando Cacciola wrote:
> I'm actually trying to vouch for my peek/acquire idiom here.
> Essentially, the name 'peek()' is intended to convey the fact that the
> points to a managed object and that the ownership is not being transfered
> along with the pointer (as oposed to acquire()).
> If I manage to make the idiom known enough, the user will know that he
> can't delete the pointer and that the pointer can be used only
> as long as the 'source' (the optional<> object in this case) remains alive.
I still don't see the difference between peek/acquire and get/release.
Care to enlighten me?
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk