Re: [boost] Is there any interest in non-owning pointer-like types?

Subject: Re: [boost] Is there any interest in non-owning pointer-like types?
From: Oswin Krause (Oswin.Krause_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-02-01 06:39:07

On 2017-02-01 12:02, Olaf van der Spek wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 11:24 AM, Oswin Krause
> <Oswin.Krause_at_[hidden]> wrote:
>> For me, the biggest problem of the proposal is that observer_ptr<T> is
>> implicitely constructed from T&. In my code I often use:
>> 
>> Foo a;
>> Bar b(&a);//&a signals that b only references to a, but does not copy 
>> it.
>> 
>> Now, when I write
>> 
>> Bar b(a); //so is a now copied?
>> 
>> While the interface is clearer in documentation, the usage is less 
>> clear!
> 
> IMO using pointers instead of references to indicate something isn't
> copied is bad practice.. the language is C++, not C.

This is not a C vs C++ thing.

But assume it was. How would you indicate that in C++? It should be 
clear without looking at the reference whether it is okay for a to go 
out of scope before b or not.