From: Paul Mensonides (pmenso57_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-04 22:04:32
Greg Colvin wrote:
> At 07:25 PM 2/4/2003, Paul Mensonides wrote:
>> If an implicit conversion to the pointed-to type is provided, there
>> is no need to overload the subscript operator:
>> The same applies to the standing problem of operator->*().
> Yep. More reasons why I prefer that smart pointers have an
> operator T*. But my view has always been a minority opinion,
> in this as in so many other things.
An implicit conversion could easily be an optional feature in a policy-based
smart pointer. Custom deleter policy + implicit conversion policy == smart
pointer that handles arrays.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk