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: Gottlob Frege (gottlobfrege_at_[hidden])
Date: 2017-02-14 14:46:14

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Josh Juran via Boost
<boost_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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.
>
> Josh
>

notmy_ptr is another of my favourites :-)