Re: [boost] Looking for thoughts on a new smart pointer: shared_ptr_nonnull

Subject: Re: [boost] Looking for thoughts on a new smart pointer: shared_ptr_nonnull
From: Luke Bradford (lukebradford01_at_[hidden])
Date: 2013-10-02 14:56:44

> I respectfully disagree. A reference is much more restricted than a
> smart pointer that cannot be null: it cannot change reference and it
> never owns the object it references.

Yes, exactly.

On Wed, Oct 2, 2013 at 1:48 PM, Mostafa <mostafa_working_away_at_[hidden]>wrote:

> On Wed, 02 Oct 2013 06:07:40 -0700, Thorsten Ottosen <
> thorsten.ottosen_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>
>  On 02-10-2013 14:52, Jeff Flinn wrote:
>>
>>  As Matt said this would be a precondition violation so an assert would
>>> be better than a runtime exception.
>>>
>>
>> I'd rather see we do as in Boost.PtrContainer: use BOOST_THROW_EXCEPTION
>> such that if BOOST_NO_EXCEPTION is defined
>> (or BOOST_SMART_PTR_NO_EXCEPTION), this becomes an assert. The run-time
>> check during construction is not going to be noticed.
>>
>
> +1
>
> Mostafa
>
>
>
> ______________________________**_________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes: http://lists.boost.org/**
> mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost<http://lists.boost.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/boost>
>