Subject: [std-proposals] non_owned_ptr
From: Steve Weinrich (weinrich.steve_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-11-10 21:45:39
I was thinking that a non_owned_ptr would be a good std addition. The idea
is to formalize the current convention of using raw pointers to represent
transient pointers (transient_ptr might be a better name).
Aside from a lot of details, it would simply be a template wrapper around a
raw pointer. On destruction, the wrapper would do nothing.
This would allow the enforcement of the intended behavior.
What do you all think?
STD-PROPOSALS list run by firstname.lastname@example.org
Standard Proposals Archives on Google Groups