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

From: Daniel Wallin (dalwan01_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-05 13:58:48

David Abrahams wrote:
> 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?

AFAIK neither optional or variant can be instantiated on incomplete
types, and certainly does not do any deep copying or const-propagation
on pointer types. Am I missing something here?

-- 
Daniel Wallin