On Wed, Oct 13, 2010 at 5:42 AM, Szymon Gatner
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 ;)
It's not just you. But it's that way for hysterical reasons. The first versions did have operator* and operator->, IIRC. -- Dave Abrahams BoostPro Computing http://www.boostpro.com