Boost logo

Boost :

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->*().
>> 2c.
> 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.

Paul Mensonides

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at