[boost] Re: Re: Re: peak_of() proposal

From: Philippe A. Bouchard (philippeb_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-02-12 13:13:25

Jon Kalb wrote:

[...]

> I'm afraid that I don't see your point. How is this relevant?

It will prevent you to encounter this situation (if peak_of() is used only
with smart_ptr<>s).  peak_of() won't have to deal with it.

It would also be possible to assert the parameter of peak_of() is valid, but
only at run-time (less efficient).

Philippe