Boost logo

Boost :

Subject: Re: [boost] Is there any interest in non-owning pointer-like types?
From: Gottlob Frege (gottlobfrege_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-02-09 18:56:44


- I think pointer or reference like things should be named _ptr or
_ref etc. (In comparison, optional and any can be null, but own their
value, they don't reference an external value.)
- 'observer' has already been taken by the Gang of Four as a design
pattern. Unfortunately. We could re-take the term, but it does add
- I've suggested cadged_ptr in the past - it is not a great word, as
it it not very common, but it is actually the right meaning.
And by not being common, it means we can imbue it with whatever
meaning we'd like. In that sense it is a perfectly cromulent word.


On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:08 AM, Joseph Thomson via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2017 at 6:18 AM, Niall Douglas <s_sourceforge_at_[hidden]>
> wrote:
>> 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.
> For those who are interested, I have included `observer<T>` (but not
> `observer_ptr<T>`) as part of a proposal regarding the recommended use of
> pointers over at the C++ Core Guidelines
> <>. If you feel so inclined, you
> can continue the discussion in the issue I created. I have taken on board
> some of the feedback I received in this thread, so thanks very much.
> Issue:
> Proposal:
> _______________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & other changes:

Boost list run by bdawes at, gregod at, cpdaniel at, john at