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
> 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.
(Sent from my portable computation engine)
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk