Re: Re: Re: Re: Problem using 'shared_ptr<T>::operator impl-defined-type()'

From: Alan M. Carroll, CodeSlinger (yg-boost-users_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-09-27 15:13:27

"Peter Dimov" <pdimov_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:005401c26614$5b478cb0$1d00a8c0_at_pdimov2...
>
> OK, but you are arguing for shared_ptr<T> to T* comparisons, not for a
void
> const * conversion. The right way to support these comparisons is by
> defining the appropriate operators. If you want to "lobby" for
shared_ptr<T>
> == T*, please do so on the developer list, I've no problem with that. :-)

I'm not arguing for anything. This is a technique I picked up that I found
useful because it, in a single method, provides a number of useful features.
I was simply curious as to why Boost didn't use the technique. I presumed
that it was obvious enough that it had been considered and rejected. After
searching, I was unable to find any rational for not using it, so I asked
here. My goal was to understand the logic behind that decision. You have
explained clearly why you prefer to not use it in a generic smart pointer
implementation so that achieves my goal.