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

From: Jim Apple (japple_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-04 12:35:28

Dan W. wrote:

> If I said to you, I'll pay you a thousand dollars to keep this phone 
> book for one night, and make sure it's not altered in any way, and you 
> agree... Now, next day I come to pick up the phone book and you ask for 
> the 1G, and I say, "well, you didn't do your job", and you say "how not? 
> the book is safe!" and then I say "125 people died last night, that were 
> listed in that phone book, you were to prevent that".

What if the phone book was only super-secret addresses of gold bricks, 
say?  Then, owning the phone book is equivalent to owning the bricks.

There's some serious analogy decay here, but the point is, sometimes 
owning the pointer is equivalent to owning the pointee.

Maybe it would help everyone if you explianed why that shouldn't happen 
or isn't applicable here.

Jim