[boost] Re: Interest in smart pointer with value semantics?

From: David B. Held (dheld_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-03 06:04:25

"Thorsten Ottosen" <nesotto_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:bt5ulf$svo$1_at_sea.gmane.org...
> [...]
> I really don't understand why correctness should
> not be the default and then let those who want it do the hacks?

But const-correctness *is* the default, as long as you do it
right.

> [...]
> Maybe, my though was that your pointer was partially specialized
> for const T to be const-correct; you might have thought of it as the
> normal style :-).

It doesn't need to be partially specialized.  When you use T const,
then pointer_type == T const*, which is what operator->() will return.

Dave

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.556 / Virus Database: 348 - Release Date: 12/26/2003