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

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
www.boost-consulting.com