Subject: Re: [boost] Is there any interest in non-owning pointer-like types?
From: David Stone (david_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-02-03 05:17:08
There is only one proper way to represent the concept of a T that might not
be a T: optional<T>, so I think you are defining your objects backward. The
"top level" type should be observer<T>, and if you want to support the
concept of nullness, use optional<observer<T>>. This is a much more
consistent way to treat nullness throughout the language, rather than
special-casing it for every type.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk