Boost logo

Boost :

From: Dan W. (danw_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-04 11:26:59

Daniel Wallin wrote:
> David Abrahams wrote:
>> 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).

I'm a lover of deep copy, deep constness and all deep things myself, and
I used to argue for deep_const AND a _deep_copy_assignment_operator at
an Eiffel forum; but I would want deep things to be explicit, rather
than the semantics of the language we're so used to, to change.

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