Subject: Re: [std-proposals] non_owned_ptr
From: Steve Weinrich (weinrich.steve_at_[hidden])
Date: 2019-11-10 23:09:11
None. I was not aware of observer_ptr. Is it in serious consideration?
On Sun, Nov 10, 2019, 22:03 Andrew Tomazos <andrewtomazos_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> 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 list run by firstname.lastname@example.org
Standard Proposals Archives on Google Groups