Re: [boost] [smart_ptr] Interest in the missing smart pointer (that can target the stack)

Subject: Re: [boost] [smart_ptr] Interest in the missing smart pointer (that can target the stack)
From: Seth (bugs_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-01-31 10:16:39

On 31-01-16 07:56, Emil Dotchevski wrote:
> but this is valid technique when using
> shared_ptr.
+1

I think people would just like a semantic wrapper that has a name
clarifying the purpose. So it's clear how use it is intended to be used
(and doesn't increase job security!)