> Is it in serious consideration? 

Consideration for what?  It's part of Version 2 of the C++ Extensions for Library Fundamentals, ISO/IEC TS 19568:2017.

Code such as this currently compiles:

#include <experimental/memory>

int f() {
  int a = 1;
  std::experimental::observer_ptr<int> op(&a);
  *op += 1;
  return a;
}

As can be seen at https://godbolt.org/z/GQFeh4

= - = - = - = - =

> the current convention of using raw pointers to represent transient pointers.

std::span<T, 1> might also fill that need, depending on your application.


On Sun, Nov 10, 2019 at 9:09 PM Steve Weinrich via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
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:


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
--
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals