Boost logo

Boost :

From: Reece Dunn (msclrhd_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-03 21:07:55

Thorsten Ottosen wrote:

>Not quite. I don't want it to return a const T* unconditionally.
>In the current situations, people in favor of non-const correct programs
>get what they want. I'm left with two scenarios

>1) writing a new wrapper around existing smart pointers
>2) in generic code, const T* and const smart_ptr<T> are not equal and I
>need traits to deal with different syntax

Surely const T * p/T const * p is the counterpart to smart_ptr< const T
>/smart_ptr< T const > since in all these cases, the const applies to T.
Likewise, T * const is the counterpart to const smart_ptr< T >.


Send a funky Messenger Christmas card

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at