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

From: Peter Dimov (pdimov_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-07 08:47:26

Daniel Wallin wrote:
> 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?

There might be. I wrote one:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/boost/files/impl_ptr/

On the other hand, I find myself not using it, which is why I haven't pushed
it further.