Re: [boost] Is there any interest in non-owning pointer-like types?

On Mon, Feb 13, 2017 at 10:15 PM, Josh Juran via Boost wrote:

On Feb 9, 2017, at 6:59 PM, Gavin Lambert via Boost wrote:

...

How about borrowed_ptr, unbound_ptr, irresponsible_ptr, unowned_ptr, or not_null_ptr? (Though a shorter typedef probably should be encouraged in practice or people would likely just stick with *.)

Consider nonnull_ptr in place of not_null_ptr.

Josh

notmy_ptr is another of my favourites :-)