Boost logo

Boost :

From: David Abrahams (dave_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-05 13:17:25

Daniel Wallin <dalwan01_at_[hidden]> writes:

> 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?

No, I guess I'm not saying that.

> boost::optional hardly solves the same problems that this
> kind of pointer would (incomplete types and polymorphic types for
> instance).

That's strange, because IIUC variant can handle either of those. Why
not optional?

Dave Abrahams
Boost Consulting

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