Re: [boost] dumb_ptr<>

From: Noel Yap (Noel.Yap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-15 11:20:16

Thomas Witt wrote:
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> Noel,
> 
> Noel Yap wrote:
> |
> | Which means if I wanted to write a function that doesn't pass ownership,
> | its ownership semantics is ambiguous:
> |
> |   extern C* blah();  // should pointer be free'd by caller?
> |
> | If, instead, I could do:
> |
> |   extern dumb_ptr< C > blah();
> |
> | the intent is clearer.
> 
> Sorry for being so dumb, but the intent isn't clear to me. What kind of
> ownership semantics should dumb_ptr imply?

dumb_ptr<> is meant to have the semantics of no transfer of ownership. 
I believe this is the last major usage of raw pointers.

HTH,
Noel
-- 
NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender.  Sender
does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.