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

On 10/02/2017 12:24, Joseph Thomson via Boost wrote:

I initially read that as `caged_ptr`. I looked up the definition, and it does seem to have the right meaning. If such an uncommon word is undesirable, perhaps `obseved_ptr` or `watched_ptr` would be preferable (the "-ed" form of the veb matches `shared_ptr`).

At the risk of devolving into a bikeshed, I don't really like anything that implies observing or watching unless it has the semantics of weak_ptr and knows when it is no longer pointing to a valid object. 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 *.)