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: Joseph Thomson (joseph.thomson_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-02-03 12:54:39

On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]>
wrote:
>
> I'd need a fair bit of convincing that observer<T> has merit in any form
> except additional clarity to help demarcate unupgraded code from
> upgraded code. If that's your argument, and you're not doing funny
> things with implicit conversion from T& and other funny non-GSL
> semantics, I'd suppose this though I'd suggest you actually contribute
> it to GSL itself and persuade Neil to let it in.
>
> The GSL is a *much* better home for it than Boost because then you'll
> have Bjarne batting for it, plus static checking support from Microsoft
> in VS2017 and Google via clang-tidy. You'll also get a *huge* userbase
> almost instantly, because the GSL or rather one of its C++ 98 clones is
> seeing exponential growth recently. It's amazingly useful for upgrading
> ancient C++ codebases.

 I have just written up a proposal for inclusion of these types in the GSL,
which you can find here:

https://github.com/hpesoj/cpp-observer/blob/master/GSL-PROPOSAL.md

While I don't want to appropriate the Boost mailing list for unrelated
purposes, I thought I would post this here since I am still not entirely
sure where I should be proposing this. My proposal would pretty much look
the same whoever I pitched it to. And perhaps those involved in this thread
are interested anyway. I'd be glad to hear any opinions.

p.s. I am no longer doing funny things with implicit conversion from `T&`.