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: Rob Stewart (rob.stewart_at_[hidden])
Date: 2016-02-04 05:25:04

On February 3, 2016 3:19:15 PM EST, Emil Dotchevski <emildotchevski_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 
> Can't make C++ less messy or less complicated or more safe without
> breaking
> it. If you're looking to avoid the possibility of undefined behavior,
> C++ is not the language for you.

We regularly eschew aspects of the language in favor of safer alternatives. Smart pointers are a prime example of that.

Having Robert's safe integers, or Noah's classes, is a similar tool in the box. The question is how safe they should be and whether they should offer ways to forego that safety when desired or needed.

___
Rob

(Sent from my portable computation engine)