Subject: Re: [boost] Is there any interest in non-owning pointer-like types?
From: Josh Juran (jjuran_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-02-14 03:15:36
On Feb 9, 2017, at 6:59 PM, Gavin Lambert via Boost <boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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 *.)
Consider nonnull_ptr in place of not_null_ptr.
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk