Boost logo

Boost :

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

Daniel Wallin

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