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

From: Daniel Wallin (dalwan01_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-04 08:52:19

David Abrahams wrote:
> <snip>
> 
> It would only make sense in C++ to make a pointee's mutability depend
> on the mutability of the pointer if we were going to think of the
> pointee as being part of the pointer.  For that application, we have
> boost::optional.  Pointers should probable remain pointer-like.  In
> other words, they simply refer to other objects but do not contain
> them.

Are you saying there is no place for a deep-copy pointer with const
propagation? boost::optional hardly solves the same problems that this
kind of pointer would (incomplete types and polymorphic types for
instance).

-- 
Daniel Wallin