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