From: Fernando Cacciola (fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-09-01 15:28:14
Joel de Guzman <djowel_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> Fernando Cacciola <fernando_cacciola_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> > First of all, let's not confuse syntax with semantics.
> > optional<> HAS strict value semantics.
> No it does not. The accessors have pointer behavior!
Well, we would argue forever since it is a matter
of how much weight it is put in each part of the
behaviour and how that sum up to make it "X semantic".
In the case of pointers, it is IMO the aliasing
and shallow copy behaviour what is relevant
to consider a given behaviour as pointer semantics.
The presence of operators *() and ->() don't
count as pointer "semantics" to me.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk