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

From: Daniel Wallin (dalwan01_at_[hidden])
Date: 2004-01-21 19:15:49

Daryle Walker wrote:
> Was it something like:
> 
> template < typename T >
> class const_matching_ptr
>     : private boost::noncopyable
> {
> public:
>     explicit const_matching_ptr( T &x ) : x_( &x ) {}
> 
>     T *                 get()                 { return this->x_; }
>     T const *           get() const           { return this->x_; }
>     T volatile *        get() volatile        { return this->x_; }
>     T const volatile *  get() const volatile  { return this->x_; }
> 
>     // Don't forget to do all the qualification combinations!
>     // (Should we add const/volatile qualifications as a new
>     //  kind of template parameter?  Look at how similar the
>     //  "get" methods were.  This will get worse if we use
>     //  C-1999's "restrict".)
>     T *  operator ->();
>     T &  operator *();
>     T &  operator []( std::size_t i );
> 
> private:
>     T *  x_;
> };

No, not really.

-- 
Daniel Wallin