Howard Hinnant wrote:
I've got 3 ownership policies on my mind:
1. shared 2. unique 3. cloned
And if anything I'm leaning towards shallow const on all of them. However I also believe deep const versions of all of these would probably be valuable as well. And I'm especially looking at signatures like:
template<class T, class U> bool operator==(const shared_ptr<T>& a, const shared_ptr<U>& b);
shared_ptr today is a shallow const animal, and I think that is good. But the above signature assumes deep const. It would be nice to have a zero-overhead way to express and enforce that assumption.
I'm not sure I understand. Why does the above assume deep const? It's just the shared_ptr equivalent of: template<class T, class U> bool operator==(T * const & a, U * const & b);