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

From: Thorsten Ottosen (nesotto_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-03 08:00:05

> "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.

[I hope I'm not misunderstanding how your pointer work]

:-) it depends on one's definition of const-correctness. I'm talking about
*propagation of constness* within const member functions, not unconditional
constness.

This is the only meaning of const-correctness that I have seen.

The fact that this is not supported by commonly used smart-pointers is like
reducing all talk about
const-correctness to a joke, unless there are other secret reasons for doing
it that way. If they exist,
I would like to hear them.

br

Thorsten