13 Oct
2010
13 Oct
'10
9:42 a.m.
Hi, Is it just me or is it really the worse naming in whole boost library? It is nothing like any other smart pointer. No initialization / construction from raw pointer. No operator * or -> (the very least one would expect from _ptr class). No get(). And many more which I now forgot. My point is that is is not a pointer at all, not even a bit. It only happens to have a member variable returning one and that is hardly a reason to call type pointer-like. It should rather be called shared_tracker or shared_listener or something in that taste ;) Regards, Szymon