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: Olaf van der Spek (ml_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-02-01 06:50:48

On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 12:39 PM, Oswin Krause
<Oswin.Krause_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.

There's no way to indicate that, AFAIK.

-- 
Olaf