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: 2017-02-10 08:12:36

On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 7:59 AM, Gavin Lambert via Boost <
boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> On 10/02/2017 12:24, Joseph Thomson via Boost wrote:
>
>> I initially read that as `caged_ptr`. I looked up the definition, and it
>> does seem to have the right meaning. If such an uncommon word is
>> undesirable, perhaps `obseved_ptr` or `watched_ptr` would be preferable
>> (the "-ed" form of the veb matches `shared_ptr`).
>>
>
> At the risk of devolving into a bikeshed, I don't really like anything
> that implies observing or watching unless it has the semantics of weak_ptr
> and knows when it is no longer pointing to a valid object.
>
> How about borrowed_ptr, unbound_ptr, irresponsible_ptr, unowned_ptr, or
> not_null_ptr?  (Though a shorter typedef probably should be encouraged in
> practice or people would likely just stick with *.)
>

A previous name I used was `indirect`, to give it an air of pointer-ness
without using the terms "pointer" or "reference" (though it doesn't have a
`_ptr` suffix). If we're being creative, the name could emphasise how the
pointee is liable to die before the pointer itself.

volatile_ptr
transient_ptr
mercurial_ptr
unsafe_ptr
unstable_ptr