On 11 Nov 2019, at 06:34, Steve Weinrich via Std-Proposals <std-proposals@lists.isocpp.org> wrote:
Well, the inclusion in the extensions is by no means a guarantee of inclusion in a future standard. A quick Google search reveals this view:In any case, it seems that my notion is not new. Thanks!--On Sun, Nov 10, 2019, 22:20 Jorg Brown <jorg.brown@gmail.com> wrote:> 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
Std-Proposals mailing list
Std-Proposals@lists.isocpp.org
https://lists.isocpp.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/std-proposals