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:
>>>It would only make sense in C++ to make a pointee's mutability
>>>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
>>Are you saying there is no place for a deep-copy pointer with const
> 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
> 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
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk