None. I was not aware of observer_ptr. Is it in serious consideration? 

On Sun, Nov 10, 2019, 22:03 Andrew Tomazos <andrewtomazos@gmail.com> wrote:
How does it differ from:

https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/experimental/observer_ptr  

On Mon, Nov 11, 2019 at 1:45 PM Steve Weinrich via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> 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@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals