Boost logo

Boost :

From: Daniel Wallin (dalwan01_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-04 12:09:38

Dan W. wrote:
> 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.

Of course, that's what I suggested from the start.

Daniel Wallin

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