From: Noel Yap (Noel.Yap_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-04-15 11:20:16
Thomas Witt wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 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.
-- NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk