C++ Logo


Advanced search

Re: non_owned_ptr

From: Andrew Tomazos <andrewtomazos_at_[hidden]>
Date: Mon, 11 Nov 2019 15:03:16 +1000
How does it differ from:


On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:45 PM Steve Weinrich via Std-Proposals <
std-proposals_at_[hidden]> wrote:

> 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 mailing list
> Std-Proposals_at_[hidden]
> https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals

Received on 2019-11-10 23:05:48